Hello, Manuductive, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• How to avoid a conflict of interest

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! cyberdog958^Talk 09:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manuductive! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Manuductive, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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. — Newslinger talk 14:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a new editor, so a piece of free advice. You probably want to use a different word here instead of "canvass". It has a bad meaning for Wikipedians as in WP:Canvassing. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up. Apparently I should have used "Appropriate notification". Manuductive (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ixudi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ixudi, I hope you'll continue to discuss on the article's talk page in the meantime. Manuductive (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Fantastic work on several third opinion cases. I appreciate, specifically, your attention to detail, deep review of sources, and engagement. Squatch347 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to your comment here. It was directed at a contributor and clearly not on the subject of the page. As the banner of the talk page says, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scott Ritter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.. What you said was not on the subject of this page at all. Please do not do this in a future. If you have issues with editing by any contributor, this is fine. But please talk with him on his talk page if you feel it would help, not on the article talk page where people are discussing something very different. It would be great if you remove your comment from the article talk page. But this is up to you. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And no, my single edit on this page was perfectly legitimate and not WP:ADVOCACY. As of note, I have no negative opinion about the subject. Whatever wrong he tells, I have listen quietly much worse from people who were close to me. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, my comment about your obvious and highly disruptive WP:ADVOCACY was meant for the good of the talk page and the article. Among other things, it improves the page if other editors in the discussion are warned that you dedicate your whole user talk page to flaying the same regime supported by the BLP’s subject, whom you were working hard to impugn with all kinds of nonsense argumentation. I find it personally awful how you keep trying to amplify sensitive and derogatory information about this guy on Wikipedia when it isn’t due and has nothing to do with the conflict that you personally have with the guy. If you have issues with his pro-Kremlin propaganda then spend your time constructively—trying to debunk anything he says that you consider to be disinfo.Manuductive (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are making things up. I did not keep trying to amplify sensitive and derogatory information about this guy on Wikipedia. I only looked at the page, posted my opinion in the RfC, and made a single edit on the page. This is because I actually did not listen or read anything by Scott Ritter. I know he exists, but am not interested in this guy, sorry. You incorrectly assume that I hate him, while I do not. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? We both know that you spent several days edit warring and making ridiculous red herring arguments on the talk page in favor of emphasizing undue derogatory information in the BLP. Even in your user talk page comment just now I had to censor the diff you posted that was yet another attempt to highlight the BLP-barred material. user:SmittenGalaxy user:NatGertler, would you care to weigh in on this? Manuductive (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made exactly one revert per WP:BRD. That was not edit warring. I also have explained my opinion about including the disputed content on the article talk page because that was asked at the RfC and because you happened to disagree and I had to explain my position. My arguments were policy-based and reasonable [1]. If you disagree, that's fine, but it does not mean you should make any personal comments on the article talk page. This is just an idea, I do not mind that you quoted me. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your style of cherry picking random irrelevant pieces of information that don’t even substantiate your point makes it hard to come up with any kind of reply. I don’t know what to tell you. You were obviously engaging in extensive disputation on the talk page meant to smear the subject of the BLP and you explicitly stated that he is a pro-Putin propagandist and you fill your user page with sharply worded critiques of the same Putin. I don’t know who you think you’re fooling here. I suggest you thoroughly read WP:ADVOCACY. It clearly tells us that “Polite advocacy can often be controlled by informing the editor of Wikipedia's mission and asking them to refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally.” But you are not really being too polite, actually, with this constant stream of low-quality argumentation. Manuductive (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the discussion by all sides was fine excluding only your last comment. My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that this is a little strange to be taking to someone's talk page three days after the comment was posted. It's even more strange to call it off-topic for the discussion, when it directly relates to the discussion at hand. It's not a personal attack towards a contributor, it's saying that if you cannot neutrally discuss a topic, you shouldn't be involved in such a discussion. It may not have been worded the best, but to say it's a personal attack and didn't belong on the page — going as far as to ask them to remove the comment — is a little against WP:AGF bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS.

If you have a problem with a topic area, and something overlaps with that topic area, it's pretty natural to assume you will be questioned and asked not to participate in related areas. See WP:BROADLY construed about this; it's the same thing we do with WP:TBANs and blocking. If someone cannot act neutrally on a topic, it's pretty safe to assume they shouldn't interact with related and overlapping topics. Regardless if you don't like this specific guy or not, which is besides the point because that's not even what's being said, you shouldn't edit his article and participate in content discussions if you cannot remain neutral, which it seems you cannot as you want to introduce BLP-violating content into the article.

I'll just suggest to drop the stick and back away, because this is starting to get away from a simple content discussion and into an editor related argument that has no right being so. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What "stick"? I left this page three days ago and did not edit it before anyway. But yes, it was exactly my point that a simple content discussion should not descend "into an editor related argument" on the article talk page. That's why I started this thread here instead of replying on the article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"you want to introduce BLP-violating content into the article.". No, I do not. The content was there for years, and Manuductive started a discussion asking to remove it. I objected based on the infobox instruction. That does not mean anyone can not edit anything. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did stop responding on the article talk page three days ago, which is why I'm saying it's weird now to bring this NPA claim to the editor's talk page.

The content was there for years see WP:CONTENTAGE. Unchallenged from years ago does not equal consensus to keep and requiring a discussion to remove it. It was challenged, and it was removed. Fairly simple. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 18:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes It is strange, indeed. I do like the policy of AGF but there is a point where the comments are consistently weird enough that there's nothing left to assume. Manuductive (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything terrible or against the policy on the talk page of "Scott Ritter" and thank you for your responses. But perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote on my talk page. The translation from Russian was terrible, and you need to know the context. I referred to Sergei Shoigu who publicly boasted that he is a descendant of Subutai, and his forces indeed surrounded Kyiv just like his alleged Mongolian predecessors a few months after he said it. I wrote this two weeks before the invasion. It was obvious they are going to invade, while the Ukrainian president was in complete denial. Yes, I do not support what they did. Do you? My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's quite obvious that your comments here are disinformation. The question is, what exactly are you trying to achieve? You're not going to convince me that you weren't strenuously and at great length advocating to smear the BLP subject, or that your talk page comments are neutral about the Russian govt. Are you just trying to waste my time? Maybe you should entertain yourself by editing a Wikipedia page that doesn't relate to "Путлер".[2] Manuductive (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought that "comment on content, not the contributors" on article talk pages, as our policy say (and the banners at the top of corresponding talk pages also say) should be simple, but you seem to disagree with this, based on your comments above. There is nothing else I can explain, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely false. My comment was precisely centered on the topic and the discussion, as I and the other editor have already explained to you repeatedly. This is the zillionth time that your phony arguments have faithlessly disregarded our very simple and clear responses. I am totally convinced that you either are not capable of grasping the policies, or you are actually trying to be disruptive. For example, I had to repeatedly explain to you that your talk page comments were directly violating Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:CONVICTEDFELON and yet you persisted in using the same inappropriate labels. Every time we try to explain something to you, you reply with something that totally misconstrues both the policies and what happened in our discussion. This conversation is clearly not going anywhere. The most obvious explanation for your conduct is, as I said, you are using Wikipedia to advance your ideology. Manuductive (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was your comment. Was it "discussing improvements to the Scott Ritter article."? Everyone can judge it, but I think the answer is clearly "no". I would suggest to self-revert. If you said this on my talk page, that would be fine. This is just an advice to you as a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding editors who aren't neutral (such as yourself) from participating in discussion and consensus is 100% dead-center in the middle of "improvements to the article". The fact that you cannot accept this simple fact is yet another piece of evidence that you are not capable of neutrality on this set of issues. As is your apparently endless persistence with this pointless discussion and your total failure to take anything I've said to heart.Manuductive (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, you do admit that your goal was to exclude me from this discussion and the page, exactly as you said in your comment. OK, you have succeeded. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the site policy says that we try to politely encourage advocates to avoid the relevant topics, or ban them if necessary. Did you even read the WP:ADVOCACY policy that I was implementing? By the way, I also found it really disturbing and extreme when you argued that emphasizing derogatory information would not risk damaging the life of the subject. Manuductive (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really believe that someone is an "advocate", does not follow the rules and damages content, you should politely talk with them at their talk page. Then, if it does not help, you should report and discuss the issue at the appropriate noticeboard, not on the article talk page. However, if you just say him "go away!" at the article talk page, that can be interpreted as your misconduct, sorry. Once again, this is just a piece of advice. I do not really care about this page or the little content disagreement we had. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let this sink in: my comment about your advocacy is an essential part of the discussion we were having on the talk page. The other editor agreed[3] The comment was made for the good of the other editors and the article itself, to put your very dogged advocacy in its proper context. You have made this same point before, repeatedly. It was wrong the first time, and it will keep being wrong, no matter how many times you continue to gorge yourself on WP:HORSEMEAT. The further you go with this, putting more of your time and energy into the discussion in a way that is totally inconsistent with the behavior of a neutral editor, the more you make it obvious that you are coming from a place of strong ideological motivation and should not go anywhere near the talk pages of the topics that relate to your ideology. Manuductive (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuductive, having read through all this, it appears that for some reason you are trying as hard as you can to find fault that does not exist. It also appears that My very best wishes is not the editor pushing a POV. This does nothing to improve the project. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the underlying content discussion on the article talk page, as well as the talk page entries at user:My very best wishes that I referenced? Manuductive (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to leave edit summaries when removing cases at WP:3O. As noted in the instructions, at minimum, when taking a case, please note how many cases remain on the page. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thank you. Manuductive (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! When you are one against many in a discussion and unable to gain consensus, be careful to avoid criticizing other editor's motivations. This never works. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you referring to? I don't think I referred to anybody's motivations. Perhaps I can help to clarify whatever comment it was that spurred you to post this. Manuductive (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most recently[4][5] But also your dialogue here with My very best wishes. And your several comments claiming a former officer of WIkimedia is "far-left" are way off base. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding former Wikimedia (WMF) CEO Katherine Maher's controversial and politically-charged tweets which she published during her tenure at WMF, my comments reflected well-published information from reliable sources[6][7][8] regarding Maher's political views, which verify my contributions to include this notable information in the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, where it's plausibly due.

The two diffs you mentioned were not about personal motivations at all, but rather presented squarely policy-based arguments. Specifically, I addressed your overbroad misapplication of WP:FRINGE, which actually only applies to scientific viewpoints, not political viewpoints, such as the opinion that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, and I expressed my dissent to your suggestion of moving my contribution to a less visible article. I also pointed out the fundamentally subjective quality of an editor's contention that information published in RS[9] cannot be considered due if the subject of the article is a minor political advocacy group. It's simply not of the quality necessary for this article and the information is trivia. Whereas, WP:NPOV does not mention any of these subjective factors as determinants for the weight of a contribution, which is simply based on representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. These were all content- and policy-based arguments, and I note that you have not directly addressed them.

O3000, I think caution should be used when you're considering posting these warning templates on an editor's talk page, especially when you are involved in a content dispute, as these can sort of appear to be an attempt at intimidation. I believe such matters are best resolved through open discussions on the appropriate talk page, or, if you feel you have to go to the user talk page, then consider writing your own message that fits the situation.

Finally, as noted in Wikipedia:Advocacy#Dealing_with_advocates:

"Polite advocacy can often be controlled by informing the editor of Wikipedia's mission and asking them to refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally."

My very best wishes engaged in advocacy by persistently arguing for an undue emphasis on sensitive, derogatory information in the biography of an individual who supports a government that My very best wishes extensively criticizes in their user page. Their repetitious proposals clearly violated BLP policy, and their user page contains extensive criticism of an affiliated subject, which raises obvious concerns about neutrality. Notably, SmittenGalaxy agreed with my position on this matter [10]. My very best wishes contacted me on my user talk page to dispute my position that they were engaging in advocacy, and to try to talk me into striking my reference to WP:ADVOCACY, however, neither you nor they have presented any information that changes my viewpoint in support of the enforcement of that policy. Manuductive (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to lecture and fail to assume good faith. And again, this is Wikipedia, not WMF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF has an important role in what ends up happening on Wikipedia.[11]. Anyways, I'm assuming good faith, but it's disappointing when I try to make a neutral case for my perspective and you just dismiss it as "lecturing". That's pretty condescending. Manuductive (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, you linked to a terrible source that was just regurgitating another terrible source. The first is owned by a man who had to apologize for racist and Islamophobic emails as well as spreading Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The second was a site founded by Tucker Carlson, who even Fox had to fire after losing $787 million for spreading misinformation (to put it nicely). WMF does not write or curate any of the content on the project. It only gets involved with content when there are legal issues, like child endangerment or copyright issues. Your repeated attempts at claiming WP bias based on your characterization of an ex-CEO of WMF based on a Tweet makes no sense and frankly violates WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the substantive arguments, but I still disagree. It will be time for us to drop the stick soon, I reckon.

What sources were you referring to there? The source I used was GREL -- The Times: https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/wikipedia-blacklist-sources-websites-rltf92jlx

Also, re Katherine Maher -- How exactly does this violate BLP, in your view?

Her tweets were heavily publicized in GREL -- The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/business/media/npr-chief-executive-criticized-over-tweets.html which publishes a viewpoint by a conservative pundit that Maher is "furthest-left" and Reason https://reason.com/2024/04/18/nprs-katherine-maher-is-not-taking-questions-about-her-tweets/ I would say it does not violate BLP since Maher has already been widely characterized in public media as having a distinctive ideology. For example, the NPR Berliner letter criticized her, claiming that she has "divisive" views. There has been a lot of controversy around her published in RS https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/04/17/npr_ceo_katherine_maher_a_reverence_for_the_truth_might_be_getting_in_the_way_of_getting_things_done.html In that last one, she mentions that she "works with" the editing community in her role as WMF CEO. Manuductive (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]