| Revision as of 17:44, 1 January 2025 editDustinscottc (talk | contribs)98 edits →Introduction to contentious topics: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App talk reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 1 January 2025 edit undoNewimpartial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,832 edits →Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::Read ]. It does not matter that you are right and they are wrong, if you reply to every single answer you disagree with, people will consider you bludgeony. ] (]) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ::Read ]. It does not matter that you are right and they are wrong, if you reply to every single answer you disagree with, people will consider you bludgeony. ] (]) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::It does matter that I'm addressing spoilers. There is no real lack of consensus, but the people voting to keep it without addressing the problems make it seem like there is. How else do you propose addressing that problem? ] (]) 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | :::It does matter that I'm addressing spoilers. There is no real lack of consensus, but the people voting to keep it without addressing the problems make it seem like there is. How else do you propose addressing that problem? ] (]) 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 22:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:10, 1 January 2025
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, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages;
- 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 02:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Different people keep making points that have already been addressed without bringing new information. The sources don't back up the claim. Simply proclaiming they do to create the illusion of non-consensus isn't helpful. Every person who simply says without showing that the source backs up the claim needs to be held to account. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLUDGEON. It does not matter that you are right and they are wrong, if you reply to every single answer you disagree with, people will consider you bludgeony. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does matter that I'm addressing spoilers. There is no real lack of consensus, but the people voting to keep it without addressing the problems make it seem like there is. How else do you propose addressing that problem? Dustinscottc (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLUDGEON. It does not matter that you are right and they are wrong, if you reply to every single answer you disagree with, people will consider you bludgeony. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
Your recent editing history at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory 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. Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)