RBL2000
Welcome
edit
|
January 29, 2019
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Editing advice
editI have read through the ANI reports and your editing history at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. While I think the ANI reports were over-reactions, I would like to offer you some advice on avoiding conflict and editing constructively. But only if you are interested in what I have to say. TFD (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am listening. RBL2000 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Good. Wikipedia follows written policies and guidelines which you will find in the links under "Getting started" in your welcome message above. It is important to learn these and it is often necessary to refer to them if you have a content dispute. You can see how these are interpreted by reading noticeboards.
It is probably not a good idea to begin editing in articles about a controversial current event. You might want to try other areas of interest where there is less possibility of conflict. But if you do come into conflict with other editors, you need to remain civil, per "No personal attacks." You should not accuse other editors of lying for example. Bear in mind that different people view the world differently and their views can change. In fact, most people moderate their views as they age. There have actually been cases where editors provoke other editors into attacking them in order to get them banned. Also, you need to observe the rules on edit-warring. It is best to make few reverts and to get consensus from other editors for your changes.
When you post an observation to a talk page, you must be clear that you are suggesting a change to the article. You did not do that in the Bolsonaro article for example, which opened you to an accusation of soapboxing.
The articles about current events in Venezuela are not supposed to explain what is happening there, but to summarize what Western media is reporting. I too doubt that 200,000 to 350,000 people attended Branson's concert, but until CNN publishes a retraction, that's how many people attended. If there's a picture of Trump pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey and all the media says it's a duck, then it's a duck. However bear in mind that the media tend to write cautiously, for example, "according to reliable sources." The New York Times never claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they merely presented numerous sources that said there were. So Wikipedia should not have said that were WMDs, but used the phrasing in the Times and similar sources. If you want to add what dissenters say, it needs to be sourced to mainstream media. The main policies here are reliable sources - if it was not reported in mainstream media it did not happen - and weight - if it was not reported in mainstream media it is unimportant.
The consequence of RS and weight is that sources such as RT and Venezuelanalysis should not be used, although as far as I know they are not banned as sources. Similarly facebook postings, tweets and other social media usually fail reliable sourcing and weight.
As current events fade into history and relevance, they are re-written by social scientists, the narrative changes, and the range of opinions in reliable sources widens. Also, they usually become less controversial.
If you find yourself in disagreement with literally every editor on an article, you should consider that you might be wrong. If you decide you are not, you should not continue to argue, which is pointless. Not only do you not change anyone's mind, but the discussion creates a wall of text that discourages other editors from contributing. Instead, post a question at a noticeboard: WP:RSN, WP:NPOV or WP:NORN. After that you can post a request for comment, but you should not do that until you have more experience. In every posting make sure that you clearly and concisely explain the disagreement without showing any bias toward the topic or other editors.
Finally, you should never canvass other editors on the assumption that they will support your position. If you ask another editor for advice on any article you are editing, they should reply but should not involve themselves in editing that article. Also, while you can email other editors, you should ever use it to canvass support. All discussions among editors relating to editing should be available for all editors to see.
I hope this was not too long. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I am not an administrator but have survived longer than most editors. If you are willing to accept the constraints of editing, you may enjoy it, but otherwise you may find your time is better spent elsewhere.
In terms of my politics, I have been accused of supporting the Left, the Right, the Center and much more, just for defending policy. I never knew what to think of Chavez. While he greatly improved the lives of the poor, I now think he was in the tradition of Latin American populism - he rewarded his voting block. But he has attracted far more animosity than he probably deserves.
TFD (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'd second all of TFD's advice. I'd also suggest that it's really best to get accustomed to the customs and norms of Wikipedia somewhere a bit less confrontational than an article set about an ongoing political crisis. For one thing, people are going to be a lot more forgiving of people learning the ropes when it's not something with passions raised. I mean, despite the passion and effort I put into countering nativism and racism on Wikipedia, my first love here is, and always will be, rather dry articles about Chinese history and literature. It can be a very good idea to find some area of the project where you can use enthusiasm and passion without having that slam head-first into somebody else's passion. This is especially the case when you're new. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I closed the discussion thread after the posting editor agreed to a "last chance." TFD (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Wish it was also last chance for him, lying SOB.RBL2000 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)- I would suggest you strike through this comment; your user page has a high level of scrutiny for a new account, and that statement is not in keeping with Wikipedia's civility requirements. I understand it can be frustrating to deal with situations like this. That's another reason I'd suggest backing away from contentious editing while you learn the ropes. You're not going to be able to bring WP:NPOV balance to anything if you're indeffed under WP:NOTHERE as certain editors want. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- So I am being stalked. RBL2000 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest you strike through this comment; your user page has a high level of scrutiny for a new account, and that statement is not in keeping with Wikipedia's civility requirements. I understand it can be frustrating to deal with situations like this. That's another reason I'd suggest backing away from contentious editing while you learn the ropes. You're not going to be able to bring WP:NPOV balance to anything if you're indeffed under WP:NOTHERE as certain editors want. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I can confirm that you are being watched. However, I have confidence TFD will be able to set you on the right path. Comments like that do TFD a disservice. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Ditto. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- An editor has moved to re-open the ANI thread following the posting that you have now struck out. TFD (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Ditto. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)