Jump to content

User talk:EnlightenedIllusions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

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! tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm BBQboffin. An edit that you recently made to Lindsay Graham seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BBQboffingrill me 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was not a test. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Women for America First

[edit]

The document you have been trying to link to is found here. I do not understand why you think it is needed on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has 4 names on it.
A Supreme Court Juctice, two highly ranked members and a potential traitor who organized an attack on my institutions. It's not offensive. It's not bias. It's fact. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are having a communication problem. I did not address the names nor the content. I only addressed the source. Why do you think this is important for Wikipedia? The way this works is like this: if you think the letter is important, there will be at least one secondary source mentioning it. Can you find a reliable source which discusses the letter? Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be downloaded from the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary's website. It was allowed through the Chair to be submitted as support of the confirmation. It is an important piece of Information. It maybe dark or detrimental, sadly it is a factual. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's both take a step back. It isn't clear what you are trying to do. Would you like to write an article about Women for America First? In other words, what is your goal? What are you trying to do? I'm asking because it isn't clear and you're confusing a lot of people with your edits. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have two new links already to start new topics, Wiki talk Verifiabilty, and talk Amy Kremer. I think everyone should know Amy Kremer had an agenda and it made it all the way to, and through the confirmation. And is recorded in our history. And yes, I think there is more there to discuss. I have no ill will towards anyone. I watched what happened. I have alot to say. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not really answer my question, but it sounds like you are trying to edit Amy Kremer, is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kremer, Fiensten, Graham, Barrett, Women for America First, propaganda, battle speech, the right not to have a religion or be subjected to, the act of treason and much more. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would recommend getting in the habit of using your sandbox page to experiment. You can find it at User:EnlightenedIllusions/sandbox. I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox and it's a common way for beginners to find one's bearings. And while you have grandiose plans, on Wikipedia it's much easier to work on small topics and work your way up. So, for example, we don't have an article on Women for America First right now, and it sounds like you are the person to write it. To start it, go to User:EnlightenedIllusions/Women for America First. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

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 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.

Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

[edit]

Five days of experience on Wikipedia clearly isn't enough. Please stop wasting editor time with guessing games and un-actionable proposals. I recommend that you find something other than politics to allow you to learn how the encyclopedia actually works. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wow! [1] BE BOLD! EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"with guessing games and un-actionable proposals. I recommend that you find something other than politics to allow you to learn how the encyclopedia actually works" So the only thing Acroterion does is BLOCK!!! OVER!!! and OVER!!! and OVER!!! EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Hold your horses. Don't attack an admin just doing their job. What you wrote is a clear personal attack and can get you blocked for longer and longer periods of time. Learn from them. That usually means you should accept, without disagreeing, what they say. Resistance will only get you into more trouble. Wikipedia is not a democracy or a free speech zone. You are in someone else's "home" and must learn "their" rules. After a while, when you have learned the rules, it will become "your" home too. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, be bold within limits. It's usually best to not be bold on controversial topics, and never if meet even the slightest resistance. Follow WP:BRD strictly. That will keep you from getting involved in edit wars. No matter how right you may be, you can and will get blocked for edit warring. Assume other editors know more about editing here than you do. Always be civil and assume good faith, so ask, rather than accuse.
Each edit should be based on reliable sources, not personal knowledge. Personal knowledge is not bad, but here it can get in the way of dependence on independent RS. A sad example is a Nobel prize winner whom we had to block because he felt his status and knowledge (he likely knew more about the topic than anyone else on earth) gave him "rights" here so he could edit and include content without citing RS. We could not convince him, and in the end his stubbornness got him blocked. Those are just a few thoughts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn’t block somebody over this sort of thing.
But, @Enlightenedillusions, I did intend to get your attention, because in the longer run, I.e. more than a five day Wikipedia career, that kind of talkpage time wasting will bring topic bans or blocks from somebody who runs out of patience. This is an encyclopedia project, not a game of “read this link and guess why I think it describes how my idea conforms to policy.” Since it was clear that you hadn’t brought yourself up to date concerning Wikipedia naming policy in the links provided for you, yet were demanding that everybody else parse the preamble to the Constitution, I felt a reminder was necessary.
You need to slow down and learn how this place works, walk before running, that sort of thing. I learned by editing articles on historic properties and obscure construction terms, and I still spend time on those things. Find something that you like to research and write about, and have fun with it. Politics will still be around once you know how to work the machine. Acroterion (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing own talk page remarks

[edit]

Good day to you, just wanted to recommend that you take a look at WP:TALK#REVISE; it's generally frowned upon to edit your own talk page comments after a substantial amount of time (for things outside of typos and the like). Wikipedia and its editors are all human and also change their mind, make mistakes, etc. We just want transparency; keeping your user account open and not deleting things helps greatly with community cohesion.

As a side note, while it's always great to have new editors, I've noticed that you seem to be very combative; We assume good faith here, and as long as you are somewhat collaborative with other editors, we'll do the same (though some people aren't as polite as they should be). I would also take a look at WP:BRD as other have said. Here's to great edits! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't remove discussions in which multiple editors have responded. There are occasional exceptions to that (and in most cases you may remove things on your talkpage), but this is not one of them. I've restored it and then archived it.
As for "toeing the party line," yes, you, I and all Wikipedia editors are expected to abide by community consensus. This is a collaborative project. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most situations I would agree with Acroterion. I proposed a question. It was five to one against the thought. It was deamed a nonstarter. It drew away from the question at hand. It was a contentious subject. I removed the topic. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Thank you for thanking me! 123957a (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I shouldn't have been thanked for such an irresponsible edit... haha. 123957a (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenedIllusions&oldid=1203364207"