|
User talk:DickenseditorWelcome! Getting StartedTutorial The Teahouse The Task Center  Tips
Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 16:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC) July 2024
Introduction to contentious topics covering all pages on post 1992 American politics.Introduction to contentious topics You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
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. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
 Your recent editing history at Twelve Tribes communities 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. Raladic (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
A bit more on policiesHi Dickenseditor. Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your comment to Doug Weller about policies and guidelines [1] and your comment about having a great deal of editorial experience. Wikipedia could certainly benefit from your expertise, but I agree with Doug that you still have a great deal to learn here. I highly recommend learning Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are usually resolved quickly and easily in collaboration. Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles. Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable. If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page. I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Civility on talk pagesHello, I've noticed that you are new on Wikipedia and I want to bring one of our core principles to your attention. Please note that Wikipedians are required to maintain a civil tone when contributing, in line with our talk page guidelines and our five pillars. Comments like this one don't really do much to move the conversation forward, as they can be seen as uncivil. If you are experiencing incivility from other editors on talk pages, or in their edit summaries anywhere, please do not return the incivility in kind or to other editors—even if it is frustrating to not do so. Rather, please consider leaving the editor a civil message on their talk page explaining that they have been uncivil, or (if this is something that is a pattern for an editor) feel free to contact an administrator in line with our guidance on handling user conduct disputes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topicsYou 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
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. TarnishedPathtalk 03:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) A reminder with NPOVHey there. I reverted your latest edits to Matt Gaetz. You removed the mention of him as "far-right" despite it being shown with 6 sources. Neutral point of view does not mean hiding that; it means telling what the reliable sources say on the articles. If you think all of those 6 sources aren't enough to characterize him as far-right, open a discussion the talk page. Regards, win8x (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for persistent tendentious editingYou have been blocked for a month for persistent tendentious editing. Recently, you added the sentence "Many, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, have noted the left-wing bias in Wikipedia" to the lead section of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, for which you were warned by Raladic. You replied claiming that you had simply summarized findings further down in the article. The article does indeed contain a whole section entitled "Liberal and left-wing bias", but that sections consists of carefully attributed accusations of left-wing bias, and is itself a subsection of "Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias" (my italics). That does not mean you can add a statement in Wikipedia's voice that "Many, including Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, have noted the left-wing bias in Wikipedia". "Noted" and "the left-wing bias" makes your wording classic Wikivoice, so it does by no means, as you suggest in your reply to Raladic above, correspond to the text further down in the article. As a contrast, when you removed the sentence "The New York Times reported The Heritage Foundation spread some false information about the 2024 election" from the lead of The Heritage Foundation, that sentence had referred to a long, very well-sourced, and appropriately wikivoiced paragraph in the section "Voter fraud claims". Did you read the full article before editing its lead? This removal of well-sourced content is downright POV-pushing. I have also taken into account the opinions and examples offered by several admins at the edit warring noticeboard. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC).
|
