User talk:Charles337

Bludgeon

You might need to read wp:bludgeon and wp:forumshop as asking the same (wall of text) question [[1]] might be seen as wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

Hi Charles, hope you're well. Thankyou for joining Wikipedia. I hope you'll allow me to be frank, you don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. On some of the more complex articles, as I'm sure you know, we require 500 edits and 30 days experience, which in my opinion is far too little. It's not your fault, they are quite complex and often are not actually applied as they are written. I want to help, but I'll need you to work, with or without me, on other parts of Wikipedia that are less complex before we come back to this page. You'll be able to see better if your concerns are genuine or based on misunderstandings. Until then, you aren't going to be effective in your editing and won't change the page. Leave a reply to this if you are interested in my help. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't come off as rude. You do come off exasperated in the Donald Trump page, and you should step back. You also seem like a smart guy. You generally get it right about NPOV, but there's an important addendum, that is bizarrely in a different page: WP:Verifiability. It is "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". There's a few more nuances. But essentially, you haven't actually established that this is a significant viewpoint, beyond just being a viewpoint. The links you provide (although some of them are dead), are not retrospective, so are not trying or really able to put the importance of the event into the political career of Trump, which is what the page is (meant to be) reflecting. Retrospective is the easiest way to assess, but is not the only way. I hope you see the issue here though. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about the other thing you told me about. I'm gonna stop doing that. I used it to find sources, not write the proposed change. But apparently the sources didn't exist, and I didn't bother checking. Completely my fault, and I should have done way better. I got very frustrated with the article and didn't want to spend time looking for sources when I know I could have. Charles337 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Don't cut more corners. You have entered one of the least forgiving spaces on Wikipedia so hold yourself to a higher standard. The behavioral guideline here is to create a "pleasant editing environment". It's hard to imagine, but such a thing is possible. If you approach the page with humility and a willingness to work hard, you will be able to affect change, but it will not be exactly the change you want right now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be remiss for me not to say that your proposals should follow sourcing, not the other way around. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 24

You also need to read wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Charles337! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Looking for non-political input on the Donald Trump article., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]