Krixano

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Krixano! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Pbritti (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Just trying to do my part in questioning some biases where I see them. I'm a Theology graduate, so historiography and textual interpretation are really important to me. Krixano (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I think we have a lot in common: I've written quite a bit about liturgical subjects (the articles I created or substantially expanded are found here. I encourage you to look into this page in order for you to better understand some of English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you ever have any questions, please reach me at my talk page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already looked at some of the guidelines. Title stylizations do not go against the guidelines. You may have been able to revert my change about title stylizations based on references, even though it's currently in discussions, but the proper thing to do would have been to add the references instead. Krixano (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on a principal that places the burden on someone who wants to retain content to both find the sourcing that verifies it and convince other editors to keep it. The correct solution with content on a high-traffic article lacking reliable sources is to delete it until sources are presented. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the sources, so there should be no problem anymore. Krixano (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your information, but Wikipedia also has guidelines that prevents editing wars when something is actively being disputed in discussions. Krixano (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the policy is to remove the added content until it is agreed upon. Re-inserting it is against the policy you're referring to. You're fairly new, and I worry you may have misinterpreted a number of policies and guidelines, especially given the use of sources that wouldn't qualify as reliable in your attempts to cite. Please consider rereading them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. According to WP:STATUSQUO: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion.Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes... Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert. Tag instead. There is no rule on Wikipedia that requires anyone to revert, but if the page has already been reverted to an older, pre-dispute version, then it's especially helpful if you avoid reverting to a different version."

The guidelines say to not revert when something is under discussions. It does not say anything about removing the content. Krixano (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're misinterpreting: the addition of content created the dispute. Two editors have reverted you, so it's clear that there's a preexisting opposition to the notes. Attempting to wikilawyer with little editing experience is a bad approach. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add the content. I reverted someone else who removed the content. It was those reverts that were the dispute.

If there is opposition, you go to the discussions. That is what the guidelines say. Krixano (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Look, you clearly don't get the policies. I'm letting you know now: this sort of behavior from inexperienced editors tends to get them blocked. Please step back, consider that other, more experienced editors might actually know the policies better, and refrain from escalating discussions. Pbritti (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are misrepresenting the policies here. I have not done anything to get blocked so far, so I suggest we take this to someone higher up.

What I do know is that you've reverted my changes multiple times during our discussions, which I believe constitutes an editing war.

Btw, I was not reverted by two editors. You are the only person who has reverted my changes so far. Krixano (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

So far you have not solved any problems here. I feel that you are cherry-picking guidelines to target my changes rather than to actually resolve the issues. Krixano (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading more and more the policies you keep telling me to look into, and more and more they support what I'm saying, which is that you should first try to fix the problems if you can rather than just outright removing material, or if editors feel that something should stay, then you can put the inline "needed citation" thing.

The guidelines seems to be more on my side of pragmatism over pedantry, unlike what you are describing, which is pedantry and literalism over pragmatism.

For example, WP:PRESERVE says the focus should be on trying to fix problems first before expecting perfection and removing imperfect content outright:

"Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't... As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. Any facts or ideas that would belong in the "finished" article should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research."

It is then followed by a whole list of things one could do to fix a problem, because the emphasis should be on preserving good material and fixing it to meet the guidelines rather than deleting it outright on technicalities. And I checked that this is not an essay, this is actual policy. I will take this to dispute resolution if I have to, because I don't appreciate pedantry bullying. Krixano (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti You know what, after spending time reading what happened to User talk:Clarawood123 in various places, including here and here, I have decided that Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia as none of the editors care even remotely about accuracy, and I have decided that admin abuse and toxicity, the stonewalling, and @User:jytdog's carelessness about the WP:3RR guideline, and @User:Bbb23's uncalled for guilty until proven innocent approach to Clarawood's situation during the "sockpuppet" investigation, as well as how much support jytdog received tells me that I do not belong anywhere near this place, and I will be continuing to warn everyone against using Wikipedia and towards using something reputable, like Britannica Encyclopedia, which has better articles in general, and many that are free.

You can do whatever you want to the TTPD article, I do not care anymore. After spending hours reading everything I just read, Wikipedia's culture reminds me of a previous internet cult that I was once a part of and had to escape to keep myself alive. Krixano (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)