This is Isi96's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Discretionary sanctions alerts

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change COVID-19, broadly construed Falun Gong gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Please refrain from making absolute statements edits to Wikipedia, as you have done at Erin Moriarty (actress). Your edits appear to lack neutrality and objectivity around the topic of disputes with Fox News host Megyn Kelly who accused her of getting plastic surgery. Using terms like misogyny in an attempt to silence the views of plastic surgery lacks impartiality which should open to debate without Wikipedia taking sides on the matter. Spyro210893 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spyro210893: If reliable sources say "misogyny", Wikipedia should reflect that. See Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So If I find natural content to reference from reliable sources. Too dispute the claims of misogyny. Then it's all fair Spyro210893 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet, you didn't cite any sources when you were doing your blatant POV pushing. Isi96 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Skarz. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Hellfire (film) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It's not up to you decide what is and what is not a legitimate documentary. skarz (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hellstorm (film) 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. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to acknowledge this now - you can use the talk page to say that some text has been copied from Renegade Tribune. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks. I actually added that content to Renegade Tribune myself. Isi96 (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine, but still note it please. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember these are routine, I have them at the top of my talk page using DSAWARE Doug Weller talk 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently undid my edits to Hellstorm (film) and in your comment said you restored the statement of fact. While the SPLC may be a reputable organization, it is against Wikipedia guidelines for you to decide what is and is not fact. My edit was intended to reduce the bias of the article and represent the fact that your quote came directly from the SPLC. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:FAPO. --skarz (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz Ah yes, because a film that insists Nazi Germany was the real victim of World War II and not the victims of the Holocaust is clearly a legitimate documentary. Isi96 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not here to debate the merits or perspective of the film. I am simply trying to modify the article to represent the fact that the "false claims" is a viewpoint of the SPLC and not Wikipedians. I for one am not well-educated enough to determine what is and is not 100% factually accurate regarding WW2. --skarz (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz If you don't know who the victims were, that's your problem. Most of the world, including the state of Germany, do. On the other hand, you should know the name of an article you created, which is Hellstorm (film). You are linking to a dab page redirected from a film named Hellstar. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller Last time I checked Wikipedia was based on verifiable facts and consensus, not things we "know." Pretty sure the page on gravity doesn't say "gravity exists because you can see for yourself." While we're at it, the film documents the 37,000 civilians casualties during the bombings of Hamburg, 25,000 civilian casualties during the bombings of Dresden, and the 9,400 civilians killed during the Allied sinking of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff. Your comment is very unprofessional and insensitive towards those people, btw. skarz (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz I know all about those. I can't stop you from making false interpretations of my posts. Or the facts of the case. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This conversation is about the documentary film Hellstorm, not your political views.

When talk pages in other namespaces (including userspace) are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Do not @ me again unless it's directly related to the Hellstorm documentary or I will consider it a personal attack. --skarz (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a user's talk page, " User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts". My comment here is not a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an administrator your should know that WP:TALK does not differentiate which 'space' the conversation is happening in. I even provided you the quote, emphasis mine. Please also note that when reviewing WP:UP there is no differentiation from behavior guidelines listed at WP:TALK.

When talk pages in other namespaces (including userspace) are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Your edits on this page have nothing to do with improving Wikipedia. skarz (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really aren't familiar with how the talk pages of experienced editors are used, are you. I think you'd be very surprised at how wrong you are. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're saying that different rules apply for different levels of editors? skarz (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz not at all, it's just more obvious as more editors interact with them. You can always complain about me at ANI. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is obvious exactly? skarz (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter. The point is, user talk pages can have non editor or article related material on them. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny that at the top of the edit page is a banner stating "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines." --skarz (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that you keep insisting the film is somehow a legitimate documentary despite it being made by an open white supremacist is legitimately concerning. Isi96 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually have not once insisted that the film is anything other than a film. I have tried to add additional material to the page which you have continuously reverted and the clear bias you have demonstrated in your comments is the alarming part. skarz (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually have not once insisted that the film is anything other than a film. That's interesting, because in your edits, you described it as a documentary and added some documentary categories to the article.

Also, in Draft:Thomas Goodrich (author), you've cited Counter-Currents, a white supremacist website. Isi96 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Isi96 You can call the film whatever you want, I don't care. The consensus from Google search seems to be that it is in fact a "documentary." Find some credible sources stating it's not a documentary and make the edit. This is the dumbest argument of semantics. skarz (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz Because of how Google personalises its search results to each individual user, we are not able to see the results returned to you when you search on Google. Can you share the search keywords you used and also some of the results that leads you to believe that there is a 'consensus' there? – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@– robertsky When I search "Hellstorm film" on Google the following websites categorize Hellstorm as a documentary in no particular order:

• Google prominently displays "Hellstorm 2015 Documentary/War"
• Wikidata
• genocidescholars.org
• plex.tv
• letterboxd.com
• IMDB
• avclub.com

skarz (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz By that logic, Europa: The Last Battle is also a legitimate documentary (it's not, it's blatant neo-Nazi propaganda). Isi96 (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not even remotely accurate. When you search for Europa on Google the first two results (the ADL and Wikipedia) both declare it a neo-Nazi revisionist propaganda film. Tons of other prominent media outlets decry it's blatant antisemitism as well. skarz (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz But it's also listed as a legitimate documentary on Google search, so using it to claim that Hellstorm is one is a bad idea. Isi96 (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And using the opinion of some random editor is just as bad. See: Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. At this time there are no credible sources suggesting that Hellstorm is revisionist or neo-Nazi propaganda. skarz (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz The fact that it's directed by a known white supremacist should be enough of an indication that it's at the very least not an actual documentary (see WP:NONAZIS). Isi96 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make a recommendation on the article's talk page to label it as a white supremacist propaganda film and cite your sources. skarz (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Skarz I'm not saying that it should be referred to as a white supremacist film, but it clearly can't be referred to as a documentary either (the fact that it insists Nazi Germany was the real victim of World War II is proof). Isi96 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an objective assessment of the sources you have put here:

wikidata - a sister project of wikipedia, user generated content, therefore not should not be relied upon to build a consensus.

IMDB - See WP:IMDB. We generally do not use the site for reference or support. (bumping this up primarily because many of the sources you indicated are using IMDB as the source).

genocidescholars.org - a single paragraph with a link to the trailer. there's no WP:SIGCOV nor critical coverage. This seems to be just a quick republishing of publicity materials... which is duplicate of what is in plex.tv below, and in IMDB above.

plex.tv - show listing. republication of information taken from IMDB.

leterboxd.com - relies on The Movie Database for film data, which is also a community site, therefore WP:UGC as well.

AVClub - powered by IMDB.

You will have to find other websites other that imdb, or TV/media services to back the documentary tag. – robertsky (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take it up on the article's talk page. I really don't care what the "film" or "movie" or "motion picture" is classified as. skarz (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robertsky The argument about sources really should be on the article talk page as suggested, how about at least copying your comments there? Others can of course copy their comments. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. skarz (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Isi96!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at QAnon 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. Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The citation doesn't actually support the statement in the article and was accidentally added there while I was fixing a typo in the quoted material (I've posted on your talk page about it). Isi96 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How could you say that there is no self contradiction? The second CNET row shows a date range of October 2020–present, and the third row shows November 2022–January 2023. They overlap, so the table contradicts itself on those two rows. In fact, my correction was wrong after reviewing it. I was correct on the second row, but the third row should have been November 2023-present to reflect Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money". Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CNET has paused the use of AI-generated content after it was noticed, so there's no error there. It might be better to change the consensus for the entry you changed from "October 2020–present" to something like "October 2020–October 2022, February 2023–present". Isi96 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad, I went through the linked discussion and it seems your change was correct. Isi96 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]