User talk:WorthPoke2

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.

I agree with you 100% regarding the omission of Owen Jones' support for Corbyn, it is bizarre they don't want this included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.196.2 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi WorthPoke2! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Kirsty Blackman that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the London Bridge Task Force

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, WorthPoke2!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, WorthPoke2. Thank you for your work on East Kilbride and Strathaven. User:Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lisa Cameron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Church of Scotland. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Owen Jones, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political views of J. K. Rowling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of physically disabled politicians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Flynn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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.

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical articles about living people

Hello WorthPoke2,

I'm adding this mostly in response to the edit warring in the article about Lisa Cameron. You're already aware of WP:BLP and most of the information available at [1], but I'd like to ensure that you have been formally made aware of the possibility of blocks or a topic ban from biographies of living people in response to persistent disruption. This mostly applies to Xwv9009 from what I've seen so far, but please be careful not to make this a personal fight between two users. Anachronist has already suggested both sides of such a conflict could end up being banned (Special:Diff/1245063627), so there is a real danger of causing disruption while attempting to deal with others' disruption.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Special:Diff/1242789516 at Talk:Lisa Cameron, there is neither a one-revert restriction active for the page, nor is accusing others of dishonesty/disingenuity usually a good idea, nor is discussing conduct on article talk pages generally done (please focus on content there). You can still edit your message as noone has replied to it yet. As a matter of courtesy, you should probably write courtesy ping [[User:Xwv9009|Xwv9009]] in the edit summary if you modify it, as it has probably been read before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Apologies, I'd misunderstood the concept of one-revert restriction. On dishonesty and disingenuity, I had been frustrated by a user who had been insisting that I edited maliciously, misrepresenting my edit history, and insisting they were not going for any personal attacks, as well as repeatedly refusing to engage on the talk page. I should probably have sought dispute resolution sooner (though I did attempt to get some protection in place as soon as their disruptive editing began [2]) -- but, in addition to being unclear on how to do this, it did seem as though they had begun to actually engage meaningfully for a brief moment, before they just went back to reverting. I'd note I am not the only person who had reverted this user's edits, or been concerned at potential violations. There had also been a lot of new user accounts vandalising the page with the same bias this user presents, which stopped as soon as they began editing. I did my best to engage and try to make incremental changes constructively, but on reflection, their repeated insistence my edits were malicious in edit summaries (such as [3]), got to me. I was conscious my own conduct would be examined when reported, and understand potential consequences. Have edited the unreplied talk-page entry (but can't really remove any suggestion of issue with conduct due to these issues. Regardless of blocks/bans, planning on not editing that page for a month or so, and hope others will be able to make some improvements. Agreed that personal fights are unhelpful -- and hope the fact I was genuinely attempting in dealing with this to address disruption will be taken into account. WorthPoke2 (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]