User talk:Kalem014: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:40, 17 January 2024

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

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.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firefangledfeathers, I am genuinely perplexed by this response, and would appreciate any insight. The template message provided above seems a bit off topic given the edit under discussion was strictly biographical, and not a discussion of any pseudo- or fringe science itself.

Would you kindly let me know specifically which point in the revised biographical lead would you consider contentious? i.e., Which of the following facts are you contending with regard to the biography of RFK Jr.?

1. Full name Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954)

2. Was/is an American environmental lawyer

3. An activist

4. An author

5. A member of the Kennedy political family

6. A 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

7. Advocates for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech.

8. Well-known as an anti-vaccine activist

9. Criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories

Perhaps rather than edit-warring and stonewalling, we can reach a true consensus up to WP guidelines.

I look forward to your response, thank you! Kalem014 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kalem014. The Contentious Topics notices are basically saying "these topic areas are sensitive, so administrative action comes more swiftly and heavily; please be on your best behavior". As they say in the notice, they are not a sign that you've done anything wrong. I do think the changes you made worsen the article, and I've explained why at the article talk page. Let's keep that discussion there, but I'll briefly say that my issues were not about contention over specific facts, but over the manner and order of presentation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== June 2023 ==
-[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
-Points to note:
-# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
-# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
-If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[WP:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to [[WP:Requests for page protection|request temporary page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 04:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
-:Hi @[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]]. Allow me to clarify. Prior to making the revision that you have now reverted twice without providing a valid explanation, I first engaged in discussion in collaboration with multiple editors on the Talk page under "Suggestions for revising the lead" to bring the lead closer to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. As you can see on the Talk page, there is a lot of concern around the objectivity of this particular content. I reverted your reversion only once, because a valid explanation was not given (please see WP:REVEXP). I invite you again to the above-mentioned Talk page section where this was discussed to express your concerns. I look forward to discussing your concerns there with you and others. Thanks! [[User:Kalem014|Kalem014]] ([[User talk:Kalem014#top|talk]]) 04:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
-::I was going to post some relevant links here but I see Hemi has done so already. Please actually read the edit war policy, and speak up if there are parts you don't understand. Even experienced editors sometimes get it wrong. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 04:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
-:::I read it again, thank you. I also responded to @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] with questions. Thank you for discussing. I am hopeful we will reach a true consensus on an appropriate lead that achieves WP standards for [[Biographies of living persons|biography of a living person]] for this man who is of notable interest for much more than just being "an American environmental lawyer and writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda." Right? [[User:Kalem014|Kalem014]] ([[User talk:Kalem014#top|talk]]) 05:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 == Introduction to contentious topics ==
 {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text  = You have recently edited a page related to '''post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people''', a topic designated as '''[[WP:AC/CT|contentious]]'''. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.