Hello, I'm
Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
555 (telephone number), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. ----
Rdp060707|
talk
04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I got your emails; not really sure why you weren't comfortable just discussing the matter here.
Coincidentally or otherwise, I don't see how a real-world ship sharing its name with the fictitious Star Trek vessel is meaningful, especially without a source that connects the two (i.e. it's not the Montgomery Scott or such...it seems more akin to Jack Dawson). The source you provided only establishes that a real world vessel exists with the same name, but...so what? That seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE to me. If you can provide a source that discusses the real-world vessel in relation to the fictitious one, that will likely address my concerns. Alternately, if you disagree, I would encourage you to raise the question at the article's Talk page, where other editors can weigh in on the matter. DonIago ( talk) 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
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 standard message is designed as an 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 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:
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.
331dot ( talk) 15:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest that you tone it down, and stick to discussion about how to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about Rep. Bowman's actions. 331dot ( talk) 15:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
555 (telephone number), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks. ----
Rdp060707|
talk
04:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I got your emails; not really sure why you weren't comfortable just discussing the matter here.
Coincidentally or otherwise, I don't see how a real-world ship sharing its name with the fictitious Star Trek vessel is meaningful, especially without a source that connects the two (i.e. it's not the Montgomery Scott or such...it seems more akin to Jack Dawson). The source you provided only establishes that a real world vessel exists with the same name, but...so what? That seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE to me. If you can provide a source that discusses the real-world vessel in relation to the fictitious one, that will likely address my concerns. Alternately, if you disagree, I would encourage you to raise the question at the article's Talk page, where other editors can weigh in on the matter. DonIago ( talk) 03:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
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 standard message is designed as an 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 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:
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.
331dot ( talk) 15:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest that you tone it down, and stick to discussion about how to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about Rep. Bowman's actions. 331dot ( talk) 15:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)