User talk:ArmandTreshi

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TY for the warm welcome to contributing :) I can see that you are extremely attached to that particular page, along with a few other people. I am surprised by how quickly condescending and rude people were! People on that page seem to have automatically assumed I have nefarious intention. I will say, the person mentioning synthesis was helpful, for me as a newbie. Even though it was a new argument, not supporting the original description of the reversion. Interesting.

For over 12 hours the edits stayed up. Then, surprise, 4 people all at the same time, were ready! Lol, and thank you for being the first on my talk page. For of all things, in of all ways, this (posting the same thing twice).

The conversation quickly disregarded my actual words. People seemed intent on explaining why, what I was adding, was not worthy of adding. Even arguing about the definition of whistleblowing! Lol, instead, the contributors seem to wish the information repressed. This is fascinating.

I knew I was onto something good, when my edits weren't reverted in 5 minutes. I suspected that they would be - and that they weren't immediately, was reassuring. I have only begun dipping my toes in the water RE editing. This has been an absolute smashing success. I am grateful to those who contributed to the talk, and helped me learn how things work :) ArmandTreshi (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that bothering people directly on their user pages seems to be the main thing you partake in. (you have been reprimanded for harassing others, quite voraciously, which you disregarded. All publicly)

I admit that I am here to attempt to contribute to humanity's encyclopedia. So for you, and the others who will follow in your footsteps, take note: do not harass me. I have been a Woman of the Web for a few decades now, and handling internet weird-o's is my bread and butter. More traffic from motivated miscreants on my talk page, will be proudly displayed :) ArmandTreshi (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]