Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hi Sokoreq. A belated welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been editing for a few years and I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as an editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hipal Sokoreq (talk) 17:47, 7 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. Hipal (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal May I know why you are reverting my constructive edits, even though I have not added or deleted anything? Are you working with the organization and maintaining that article? If so, please disclose any conflicts of interest you may have. If you have any issues with my edits, please discuss them with me before reverting them again and again. Sokoreq (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion on the matter.

I believe my edit summaries give some insight into why, but to clarify and go into further detail:

You have both deleted and added content.

You deleted content without explanation.

You added an unreliable source.

You reorganized the content in a way that changes the emphasis, de-emphasizing the overall context.

You duplicated references for some unknown reason.

My apologies, but I'll have little time over the next week or so to address this promptly. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal Thanks, for your explanation, but I disagree with your repeated reverts of my edits. I aimed to create a criticism section to simplify the article. This behavior suggests you may have a personal connection to the subject or feel ownership over the article. I only agree that Newsweek (pre-2013) was a reliable source, but articles after 2013 are generally not. I missed checking the source date.

but I hope you understand basics, that creating a new section or making minor formating edits doesn't change the overall context. Be WP:Bold but don't harass other editor through reverting there contrctive edits repeatedly, because your doesn't own the article.

Please reread WP:OWN "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it)" Sokoreq (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Science of Identity Foundation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• And regarding this edit: where do you see any occurrences of harassment at the article in question? —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @C.Fred When someone reverts your edits repeatedly without explanation, it is frustrating and not a joyful experience, because editing an article takes effort, and this behavior from the editor seems strange! and an act of harassment. Sokoreq (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @C.Fred May I know your reason for reverting my edit.? I didn't understand your edit summary. Kindly be specific so that I can improve myself for next time. Sokoreq (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You initiated the change, so I reverted back to the version before your change. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that the reason? Sokoreq (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Please re-read WP:BRD for how you should have been proceeding, instead of edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: ). Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Science of Identity Foundation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]