User talk:Pingpong947

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

June 2024

Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rape by deception seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not have a neutral point of view? I removed a poorly written part of the page, didn't I? Pingpong947 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AgisdeSparte: I'm still waiting on a response from you. Pingpong947 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the day I reverted your edit, I performed over 150 reverts across the encyclopedia. Given that your account had fewer than 5 edits and was making changes on a highly contentious topic, it raised some red flags, especially since your edit involved removing a source (+1000 b of content) without any discussion on the article's talk page.

After reviewing your edit, I encourage you to bring it up on the article's talk page so that other contributors can weigh in and assess the validity and relevance of the changes. From a preliminary review, the edit doesn't appear to me as particularly problematic, but engaging in discussion will help ensure that any modifications are thoroughly vetted by the community.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to discuss it when I gave my reasons in the "reason for edit" bit? The reasons are pretty self-evident and valid by a quick observation. Perhaps you should edit for a discussion to validate your reason for blocking it? Pingpong947 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, you would want to discuss specific disputes at the respective article's "talk page." If you want the person that "reverted" you to chime in, you might want to "ping" them there. Otherwise, reverting (i.e. "undoing") is something you can do yourself so long as you do not violate the rule WP:3RR. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will probably revert that since I stand by my edit. I'm still unsure why the need for a talk discussion when the issues are so clearly outlined and the reason given. It's going to wind up with bad faith editors protecting poorly written and sourced entries, IMO.

I've tried bringing up potential edits on other pages before. I was recently told to not comment anymore because I only have 22 edits. My comments are all strikethrough marked out, although I provided sources for things. It would seem Wikipedia is completely ideologically captured on several different fronts. Pingpong947 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a whole article called Ideological bias on Wikipedia. In any case, if/when you know the ropes better, editing controversial articles (without immediate revert) is certainly at least a possibility. You can ask any questions you might have in the future on my talk page. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 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 Wikipedia;
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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour 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 Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]