This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven1991 (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 18 October 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:18, 18 October 2024 by Steven1991 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.
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 Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was trying to tip-toe around making any edits related to WP:PIA & eventually realized how that left me with few places to edit do to how many of the sources used reference the topic :P Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Good evening
The editing environment of the List article doesn’t look ideal. Mr. Wikipedious1 doesn’t seem to show signs of stopping the use of offensive language or making dehumanising references. I have tried my best to cooperate and keep things gentleman, but it doesn’t seem to work. May I ask if you can help me keep things under control? Thank you for your participation in editing the article and pointing out the problems I wasn’t aware of. Steven1991 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're asking for my help as I've clearly been trying to, as you'd know if you'd read the talk page in full. Instead however, you seemed to brush that aside when you brought those issues to WP:AN & WP:SPI. You keep saying that you are acting polite & cooperative, but as I said at the investigation, accusing several editors of sockpuppetry on nigh-zero evidence, just because they all disagreed with your editing in some way, is about the most bad faith assumption you can make.
- As I've already addressed, yes Wikipedious1 should've been more polite, something they've already acknowledged & you seem to've ignored.
- I honestly feel a little insulted that, instead of accepting my attempts at mediation, you went around to other forums kicking up a fuss & only after that didn't work in your favor, you come back to me. Good faith isn't just being "polite", it's also your conduct & willingness to collaborate, discuss, & compromise. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see, but as I know, every user is allowed to request a sockpuppet investigation when there are any suspicions. It doesn’t have to do with any involvement in the editing of any articles. I can tell you that the request was not a direct consequence of any alleged disputes with any of the accounts. I don’t understand why there would be such an assumption. I am sorry that you don’t appreciate politeness as a sign of good faith – we probably have different understanding of what politeness is due to different upbringings. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
nigh-zero evidence
- I am sorry – this is not true, because the request was supplemented by multiple links of AI analysis results by relevant softwares, which most users are probably not aware of. I believe that having those results carries more water than those without. Steven1991 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)