User talk:Lostsandwich
June 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm JPxG. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. jp×g 06:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lostsandwich, this is simply informational since you are a new user and may not be aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia. I also suggest reading WP:Vandalism as Wikipedia has specific definition as what vandalism is and what it is not. Calling an edit vandalism when it is not can be construed as casting aspersions. To be clear, this is not a judgement but guidance. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@S0091: The adjusted changes meet the criteria outlined in the linked article, quoting for emphasis; "without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view" and "verifiability". Further evidence is given in justification for the original edits where the terms "phony hacks" and "far left propaganda" are used- as I already indicated in my edit notes.
- Violating npov and verifiability generally are not vandalism, outside of WP:BLP violations (npov can be tricky even for blps). That's all. Like I said, my messages are not in judgement, just guidance. If you find them unhelpful, per WP:BLANKING, you are welcome to removed them. I do suggest reading this guide on using talk pages (there is a certain format to follow, specifically WP:INDENT. Some editors are particular about it). Other than that, glad you are looking out for content that violates policy, etc. S0091 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{reply to|S0091}The stated justification for the edit, which was "...it demonstrates conclusively what type of disreputable phony bunch of hacks that they are rather than a reputable medical association just like these reversions confirm what a far left propaganda site wikipedia has become" meets the linked criteria for vandalism. It is not simple contrarianism, but as per the guidelines " deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" as it acts "without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". Before editing I ensured it met and followed the identifying steps and it was clearly identified as bad faith edit. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I get it. It was not my intent to make you feel like you needed to justify anything, thus the "no judgement" comments, but if that is the way I came across, I apologize. S0091 (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{reply to|S0091}The stated justification for the edit, which was "...it demonstrates conclusively what type of disreputable phony bunch of hacks that they are rather than a reputable medical association just like these reversions confirm what a far left propaganda site wikipedia has become" meets the linked criteria for vandalism. It is not simple contrarianism, but as per the guidelines " deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" as it acts "without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". Before editing I ensured it met and followed the identifying steps and it was clearly identified as bad faith edit. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Lostsandwich, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Lostsandwich! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC) |
Welcome Lostsandwich!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Defacing Ottoman battle articles
[edit]Hi, just I would like to show it is the same edit war pattern, possible by the same users: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda
These users (or this sockpuppet user) always edit only the info boxes, rewrite many Ottoman battle articles to Ottoman victory, or if Ottoman lost he rewrite like "Ottomans just went home from a "picnic" due to the bad weather", he decrease always the number of Ottoman army and casualties while he always increase the number of enemy and their casualties. Even he rewrote the the famous Siege of Belgrade was just a pyrrhic Hungarian victory (which stopped the Ottomans for 70 years) and he rewrote the Turks won the battle. He always remove modern academic sources and replace it with 200-500 years sources with bad referencing stlye that hard to check if true of twisted.
Siege of Belgrade 1456: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"?
Siege Güns: Talk:Siege of Güns#RESULT
Siege Jajce 1464: Talk:Siege of Jajce (1464)#Result
Battle Nicopolis: Talk:Battle of Nicopolis#Army size and sources
Siege Vienna 1529: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Vienna_(1529)&diff=prev&oldid=1172458325
Battle of Keresztes: Talk:Battle of Keresztes#Sources, numbers
Siege of Maribor 1532: Talk:Siege of Maribor (1532)
Battle of Mohacs: Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army
Siege of Kruje 1467: Same edit war pattern by 2 possible sock users: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Krujë_(1467)&action=history OrionNimrod (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long term edit war on Ottoman battle articles by possible sockpuppets, 5 reverts within 2 hours OrionNimrod (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.
Springee (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Asha Degree-related search
[edit]OK. Only because I looked at the sources and the LE involved has not said on the record the searches (and the vehicle recovered) are related to the case. But if later they do it is undeniably relevant and encyclopedic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not unless it's widely covered by reliable sources it's not. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- In that case I think we can expect it will be (And no, it does not have to be covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post to be considered "widely covered", whatever some editors think). Media across North Carolina would be enough.
- If, in that instance, you were to continue reverting the addition of that material on those grounds, I would request semi-protection of the article as a CTOPS action (as is clear from above, you are aware of this, and what it might mean). Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, some local newspapers do not make some minor procedural event into anything notable. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)