User talk:WestminsterWhistleblower

June 2024

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. I'm echoing Ralbegen's point that referring to my and Nicholas13t's edits as WP:Vandalism is offensive and unacceptable. If you read the link on vandalism I gave you (unlike when I gave you a link of WP:EASTEREGG links) you would see vandalism is causing deliberate damage to Wikipedia. There is no credible way you could construe mine or Nicholas's edits as deliberate damage, since we both gave good reasons for our edits. So your accusation is ridiculous and will not be tolerated. --Ted Edwards 21:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TedEdwardsPlease be aware, I mean no offence and please be aware that simply putting a link to the policy you are sighting - without any words framing it - is not actually helpful.

For one, it’s not immediately obvious that that’s what you’ve done - I just saw a load of jumbled blue letters and it didn’t register anything with me. I agree we should all show respect for each other but I don’t feel the way you sighted the policy was helpful because I was unaware you’d even done it!

I can accept when I’ve got something wrong, hence I reverted the edit back to what it was before I edited it once I understood what was wrong.

I accept my edit was wrong, can you please try show more respect when correcting people? Is that too much to ask? WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if you want people to show you respect, you show them respect. Calling my edits "vandalism" is not respectful to say the very least, and I am angry about it. I'm also angry that your reply only says "I mean no offence". I don't know if you think that's an apology, but it isn't. You might not have meant offence, but nonetheless, you caused me offence, and it is not my fault that I am offended. It's a bit late to apologise to me now I've had to spell out to you that you should have apologised, but I suggest you apologise to Nicholas13t on their talk page.

If you read the link the "jumbled blue letters" sent you, you would realise why I put that link there and how it was relevant. A link with the number "1" does not tell you that if you click it, you will get to the article on Jeremy Corbyn, and WP:EASTEREGG tells you why that is a problem. But that's slightly irrelevant because you're using it as an excuse because it's not the problem. I'm glad you've now understand what it's about, but the problem is calling edits clearly made in good faith (and you did not even need to see read the link to realise that) "vandalism".--Ted Edwards 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I’m really really new to this. It’s massively unfair for you to assume sooo much knowledge. It’s massively unfair. Surely as a seasoned and experienced contributor a more helpful and grown up approach would be to help and guide?

I have a very limited understanding of wiki policies and I’m learning as I go. It would serve you well to be more considered in your reversions - I feel that you have assumed bad faith in my edits. It is you who escalated this! I have had the humility to read the pages you shared (when I realised that’s what you done)… I also accepted I was wrong and apologised. You are setting no example and finding some humility would serve us all well.WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have accepted you are wrong, but I can't see a single apology from you (and you've just said on my talk page that you won't). "I mean you no offence/disrespect" is a non-apology because it suggest it's my fault I'm offended. And it's a bit rich for you to talk about humility when you have shown none, including when you say you apologised.

I get you're a newbie and there's lots you don't know, and I'm not suggesting you should know because there is too much to learn at the beginning, and everyone who's edited on Wikipedia for more than a very short time was also learning as [they] go when they started. However, vandalism is an intentional, malign action both irl and on Wikpedia, so you should have known it's wrong to baselessly accuse editors of it.

On Wikipedia, a lot of editors explain their edits through links to guidelines, and if you don't know what that link says, it's a good idea to read the link to understand their edit. It saves editors a lot of time being able to explain many edits with a little more than a link, rather than explain why the guideline's there. Even if you can't tell EASTEREGG is the words "Easter egg", or you don't know what the term "Easter egg" means in this context, you can still click the link, and you are always welcome to ask an editor who would understand what the link is about (including me) about it if you don't understand it on their talk page.

I also never assumed bad faith with your edits. There was nothing malign about you revertion except for the summary which was offensive. The actual reversion didn't breach any policy or guideline as an initial revert isn't usually considered WP:Disruptive (disruptive editing it a catch-all term for problematic editing that isn't necessarily in bad faith). --Ted Edwards 23:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, WestminsterWhistleblower, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Since you do appear to be willing to learn about how to edit well, I decided to give you this message with useful links. --Ted Edwards 02:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article

List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2024-present) and List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2024–present) look to be duplicate pages with different dashes. I'm not sure what is meant to be done about this (merged or one deleted or something) as I'm pretty out of the loop on wikipedia these days, but thought I should draw your attention to it. Banak (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for this. Well spotted. Looks like this has been sorted. Thanks WestminsterWhistleblower (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]