Evibeforpoli
Welcome!
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
United States at the 2024 Summer Olympics
editHi there. I've tidy up again the description about U.S result in 2024 summer olympics medal table. Can you check it isn't any problem? If not, I believe that it's acceptable. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. The edit looks fair and is actually a reasonable improvement from previous version. You have no problems from me. Evibeforpoli (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Your behaviour at Talk:United States at the 2024 Summer Olympics
editI'm concerned that your behaviour at Talk:United States at the 2024 Summer Olympics goes against the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. While the personal attacks against you by another editor were clearly unacceptable and I can understand they might have angered you, still this doesn't excuse you engaging in unproductive discussions.
The purpose of article talk pages is discuss how to improve an article. They should never be used for the purpose of winning abstract disputes. This means any form of WP:Dispute resolution like 3O should also only be used for disputes over how to improve an article, and never to get confirmation you're right on some particular matter.
As I noted on the that talk page, the word tiebreaker is IMO clearly correct for the situation. However it doesn't mean it has to be used in that particular case (or any particular case). If an editor suggests an alternative wording that is clearer or avoids any possible disputes, you need to give this proposal due consideration. If you disagree it is better, you need to explain why you disagree it's better rather than wanting to keep the original wording just so you're proven right.
If you just want discuss some factual dispute like what the word tiebreaker means and how it can be used, you're welcome to use the WP:Reference desk. (In this case, the most suitable reference desk would be the WP:RD/Language.) However understand that when using the RD, it should be because you're personally interested in what you're asking about.
It's not appropriate to use the reference desk just so you can prove yourself right to other editors (or anyone), and there will never been some sort of official ruling that you're right; and you also need to be willing to accept you might be wrong or at least it might be more complicated than you believe. Note that this also means it's generally inappropriate to ask at the RD and then try to use what info you receive as part of the dispute. Also the focus on the RD will be (or at least should be) on what sources/references say rather than personal opinions of editors on the matter.
You're also welcome to use one of the many forums etc out there to discuss matters that aren't suited for the RD or if you don't like the RD or you feel the answers there are unsatisfactory. However again do note that this is only for your personal benefit. You should not be doing so to try and call others to the dispute and again you shouldn't be bringing what you're told back to the dispute. (Frankly you should never actually mention the source of the dispute given the risk that people will decide to join the dispute on Wikipedia.)
Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know it is not a big deal whether or not we call it a tiebreaker or not, but the other person's explosive insults were too much and I really wanted to know how to handle them as no volunteer ever needs to have to deal with that either. I tried reasoning with them on talk, though you say it's me trying to win a debate. I was tryng to get through to them but resorted to admin noticeboard only when I gave up on them. I see the other editor is now indefinitely blocked and I could use this opportunity now to add back in "tiebreaker" but I don't. I removed the term "tiebreaker" and instead used Mgp28's proposed simplification from talk instead. But I was trying to improve the article. It had originally stated that bronze medals were used to break a tie but that is factually wrong. And I was being faithful to the source in what term they used to describe the tie breaking system which is tiebreaker. And I tried to inform the other editor that they are mistaken and gave real world examples like Fifa world cup tiebreakers that use kick difference instead of additional play to settle ranking ties as the proof that tiebreakers don't need additional gameplay. Instead of accepting it as proof, they themselves wanted to win the argument and responded with insults which did admittingly heat me up as I read them. But I would admit I did use this as a learning opportunity to understand how to deal with difficult people on Wikipedia. And thank you for giving me awareness of the Reference desk in which I may try for certain appropriate scenarios in the future. Evibeforpoli (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)