Hello, Gumbear! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!
Doug Weller
talk
18:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
|
I see that on
User talk:Zilch-nada you made the following characterization of those who disagree with you in a content dispute: They ignore or enforce the Wikipedia rules as they see fit to protect their narrative. It honestly feels like an astroturfing operation by an organization. One of the editors (Doug Weller) has even been quoted by SPLC in an article about "far right vandals" on Wikipedia.
Are you aware that this sort of conspiratorial post violates our policy against personal attacks? If not, now you know. Please refrain from this behavior in the future, regardless of what you may suspect personally. That's how we function as a huge, collaborative project which invites contributions from people with diverse worldviews.
I'll also leave the standard intro to contentious topic areas, since the current discussion at Talk:Reverse racism relates to contemporary American politics. I genuinely hope that I encounter you somewhere else on the project where we can collaborate more effectively. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That was not an attack. It was note intended only for Zilch-nada that shared my honest opinions about the dynamics of that page--and it was based on factual observations. I avoided posting it in the discussion for for Reverse Racism specifically to avoid being accused of a personal attack. Be that as it may, I am concerned about the "Reverse Racism" page. It took a turn for the worse in August 2017. From that time, one editor has controlled every edit made to the page. Those with opposing opinions have been driven off, leaving about 9-10 editors that are, largely, of identical opinions. Some of whom have been quoted by liberal think tanks about "far right vandalism" on Wikipedia. Generally, Wikipedia contains generally accepted definitions/content, and when differences of opinions arise opposing viewpoints are represented. That has not happened here--inspite of MANY editors bringing up the same concerns and many legitimate sources being ignored. The same 9-10 editors come en masse to shut down opposing views. For a controversial subject, there is no diversity of opinions or thought encompassed by this article. That's suspicious. I take no pleasure in engaging in long, drawn-out arguments like some of these editors do (as demonstrated by their pages). My only purpose is to help Wikipedia become a more objective source for information. I hope you do invite people with diverse viewpoints, but the history of this page resoundingly says otherwise. I hope you're not offended by my candor here, as my point is not to attack or offend, but these are my honest thoughts and, by the looks of past editors on this page, I'm not alone. Not by a long shot. I hope you don't take this as an opportunity to squash dissenting opinions but, rather, to listen and engage in honest, open discussion. That's what makes Wikipedia better. Best wishes. Gumbear ( talk) 02:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
other reputable scholars with different views on the subject, which you have yet to provide.For someone so concerned with "objectivity", your insistence on citing a bunch of lawyers is somewhat curious. Actual reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is determined by other, independent sources, not a U.S. federal government imprimatur. If you paid any attention to WP's policies and guidelines instead of banging the same drum over and over about "legitimate" viewpoints, you'd know this already. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You're saying an aggregation of a couple biased academics with an opinion on this matter are more reputable than the U.S. Government? Or British Government? Or most other reputable governments? Or SCOTUS? And that their opinions are all either unreliable or irrelevant?Yes, and WP's verifiability policy backs me up. Your personal opinion on what is
extremely relevantmatters not at all. You continue to beat the same dead horse at Talk:Reverse racism about dictionary definitions even after many users have calmly and patiently explained Wikipedia's approach to reliable sources. Please drop the stick already or expect that patience to run out very soon. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.
Hello, Gumbear! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!
Doug Weller
talk
18:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
|
|
I see that on
User talk:Zilch-nada you made the following characterization of those who disagree with you in a content dispute: They ignore or enforce the Wikipedia rules as they see fit to protect their narrative. It honestly feels like an astroturfing operation by an organization. One of the editors (Doug Weller) has even been quoted by SPLC in an article about "far right vandals" on Wikipedia.
Are you aware that this sort of conspiratorial post violates our policy against personal attacks? If not, now you know. Please refrain from this behavior in the future, regardless of what you may suspect personally. That's how we function as a huge, collaborative project which invites contributions from people with diverse worldviews.
I'll also leave the standard intro to contentious topic areas, since the current discussion at Talk:Reverse racism relates to contemporary American politics. I genuinely hope that I encounter you somewhere else on the project where we can collaborate more effectively. Best wishes, Generalrelative ( talk) 01:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That was not an attack. It was note intended only for Zilch-nada that shared my honest opinions about the dynamics of that page--and it was based on factual observations. I avoided posting it in the discussion for for Reverse Racism specifically to avoid being accused of a personal attack. Be that as it may, I am concerned about the "Reverse Racism" page. It took a turn for the worse in August 2017. From that time, one editor has controlled every edit made to the page. Those with opposing opinions have been driven off, leaving about 9-10 editors that are, largely, of identical opinions. Some of whom have been quoted by liberal think tanks about "far right vandalism" on Wikipedia. Generally, Wikipedia contains generally accepted definitions/content, and when differences of opinions arise opposing viewpoints are represented. That has not happened here--inspite of MANY editors bringing up the same concerns and many legitimate sources being ignored. The same 9-10 editors come en masse to shut down opposing views. For a controversial subject, there is no diversity of opinions or thought encompassed by this article. That's suspicious. I take no pleasure in engaging in long, drawn-out arguments like some of these editors do (as demonstrated by their pages). My only purpose is to help Wikipedia become a more objective source for information. I hope you do invite people with diverse viewpoints, but the history of this page resoundingly says otherwise. I hope you're not offended by my candor here, as my point is not to attack or offend, but these are my honest thoughts and, by the looks of past editors on this page, I'm not alone. Not by a long shot. I hope you don't take this as an opportunity to squash dissenting opinions but, rather, to listen and engage in honest, open discussion. That's what makes Wikipedia better. Best wishes. Gumbear ( talk) 02:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
other reputable scholars with different views on the subject, which you have yet to provide.For someone so concerned with "objectivity", your insistence on citing a bunch of lawyers is somewhat curious. Actual reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is determined by other, independent sources, not a U.S. federal government imprimatur. If you paid any attention to WP's policies and guidelines instead of banging the same drum over and over about "legitimate" viewpoints, you'd know this already. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You're saying an aggregation of a couple biased academics with an opinion on this matter are more reputable than the U.S. Government? Or British Government? Or most other reputable governments? Or SCOTUS? And that their opinions are all either unreliable or irrelevant?Yes, and WP's verifiability policy backs me up. Your personal opinion on what is
extremely relevantmatters not at all. You continue to beat the same dead horse at Talk:Reverse racism about dictionary definitions even after many users have calmly and patiently explained Wikipedia's approach to reliable sources. Please drop the stick already or expect that patience to run out very soon. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.