User talk:AthenaEditsWiki

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Women in Islam, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AthenaEditsWiki, some of your edits give the impression that you have not yet had the chance to familiarize yourself with all the advice above. Please note in particular that Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the sentence is that the claim is not verifiable. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine if the revert stands for now, but it is the label of “expert” I do not think is verifiable, especially as many of these people chose to remain anonymous. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. My comment here was meant as a general reminder about policies; I assume you have seen my more specific note at [1] about how these policies may apply to that particular case.

It's better to keep that kind of article-specific discussions to such edit summaries and the article's talk page (where others can weigh in too), but just to quickly correct some apparent general misunderstandings: the claim is not verifiable - it's unclear why you would think that, given that the article contains several cited (i.e. evidently verifiable) statements to that effect (e.g. Since the trial, some experts have contested the prosecution’s interpretation of the notes, or In August 2024, a group of 24 neonatal and statistical experts wrote a letter [...], or some medical, statistical and scientific experts have also expressed doubts about her convictions. Maybe you personally disagree with the experts whose views are reported by the reliable sources cited there. E.g. (to pick one citation given for the third sentence), perhaps you object to this Economist article titled "The trial of Lucy Letby has shocked British statisticians. And shown that many Britons are woefully ignorant of statistics" because you have conducted a statistical analysis by yourself that convinced you that these statistics experts are wrong and the prosecution was right. But per Wikipedia:No original research (another important policy to keep in mind), we can't base Wikipedia articles on such personal investigations.

Another aspect that may have caused confusion here is that per MOS:LEADCITE, sentences in the lead section (such as the one you removed) often don't carry citations if (as they usually should) they merely summarize information that is already present in the article body further down with a citation.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My correction was not made because of a personal disagreement with the cited experts. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of the qualification of these experts as well as the lack of specificity of the field in which their expertise resides. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics were given very little weight at trial but disproportionately discussed in the news. The evidence presented at trial, in our courts of law, should have primary importance. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, the main issue is that this sentence does not belong in this section as it gives the voice of these experts undue weight. There have been mant innocence campaigns for convicted killers through history, but should these voices be given more weight than our court of law? This sentence belongs in the ‘Questions about the Safety of the Convictions’ section, not in the first section of the article. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINKING

Please read our policy with regards to overlinking. Additionally, you've added wikilinks to articles that are not related to the context, for example Lamination (topology) is not an appropriate link in the context of the Ink cartridge article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thanks! AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about my mistakenly having linked to the wrong “lamination”, but was adding a link to “lamination” incorrect? I believe a layperson unfamiliar with engineering would not know what this means. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamination would've made more sense in that context, and would've been fine to link. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AthenaEditsWiki (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letby page edit

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've given more detailed reasoning for reverting your edit to Lucy Letby at the bottom of that article's talk page. DominicRA (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Topic Alert

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.

October 2024

Here is a slightly belated welcome to you to editing Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your time here. I just want to follow up the alert I left here to make the point that the alert is a standard message to let you know that the Lucy Letby page is under special measures. It is not a telling off! However, please note very carefully that you may only make one revert on that page in any 24 hour period. You were over this on Saturday, and it looks like you were over it again yesterday. But as a new editor, we are happy to extend extra latitude while you learn all the rules and processes here. You might like to consider editing some pages that are not designated contentious while you get used to editing here. Anyway I hope the picture brightens up your page. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]