→Proper use of Edit summary and ownership behavior at French Revolution: Edit summaries should be brief, neutral, and civil; it is especially important accompanying a revert. |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
== Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion == |
== Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion == |
||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Proper use of Edit summary and ownership behavior at French Revolution == |
|||
=== Welcome! === |
|||
021120x, first of all, Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you are a relatively new user, and it does take a while to get used to all the [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]] around here. As a new user, you will be given a certain amount of slack, especially regarding policies you weren't aware of, and here on your Talk page, is a good place to learn about some of them. It's like when you run a stop sign the first time, you get a warning, but then you know the rule. Hopefully, you're picking up on some of these as you go along. |
|||
I originally came here to warn you about possible edit warring at [[French Revolution]], but I see that [[User:Doug Weller]] has already done so, in the [[#October 2020|section above]] so I won't repeat that. |
|||
=== Edit summaries === |
|||
Imho however, there are still underlying issues that accompany the edit-warring that you should be aware of, including proper use of the [[WP:ES|Edit summary]], which per the guidelines, is a "{{xt|brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page}}"; and also [[WP:OWN|ownership behavior]] ([[#Ownership behavior|below]]). |
|||
Your recent edits at [[French Revolution]], namely [[Special:Diff/983970436|here]] and [[Special:Diff/983974974|here]], did include edit summaries, so bravo for that! However, the content of your summaries are not in the spirit of proper use of Edit summaries. In particular, they violate points #4 and 5 of [[WP:ES#What to avoid in edit summaries|#What to avoid in edit summaries]] because they are contrary to Wikipedia's core behavioral policy on [[WP:CIVILITY]], which is a Wikipedia policy that describes how editors should treat other editors. |
|||
I'd like to quote [[WP:REVTALK|this section]] of the [[WP:ES|Edit summary guideline]] to you, because they are particularly apt in this situation, and model what one should do in an edit summary:<blockquote>{{xt|Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to [[WP:NPA|express opinions of the other users involved]]. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example: |
|||
:''reverted edits by [[User:Example]], see talk for rationale''}}</blockquote> |
|||
That pretty much nails what the problem was, in the edit summaries accompanying your two edits. In the future, please follow the Edit summary guideline, and write brief, informative, and neutral summaries, and refrain from personal attacks and your opinions about other editors. |
|||
=== Ownership behavior === |
|||
The second point I wanted to raise is a little harder to describe and pin down, and it's called [[WP:OWN|Ownership behavior]] ([[WP:OWN]] for short). It's not clear to me if you're exhibiting ownership behavior at [[French Revolution]] or not, but those two reverts mentioned above might be a sign of that. Or, maybe it's just a sign of your being a new editor; so I'll just describe what it is to you briefly and you can read the guideline for more details. Basically, [[WP:OWN]] says that all articles are edited by the community of editors; no one editor (or group of editors) has the right to "take over" an article, or decide what is, or isn't, proper at that article. We operate by [[WP:CONS|consensus]] in developing article content. Some of your edits sounded to me like you were acting as if only you knew what was right for the article, and other editors don't; maybe I'm wrong about that. Either way, it's a point worth keeping in mind, as you go forward and develop as an editor. |
|||
I think if you tone down your edit summaries, and always remember that there are other editors out there with possibly differing opinions that you need to discuss with to develop consensus on article content, I think you'll be fine. |
|||
Thanks, and once again, Welcome to Wikipedia! [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:15, 17 October 2020
Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, but ...
Here, I've undone one of your recent reverts; See the link in my edit summary there. I didn't undo your other reversion there, but see e.g., this -- not the title there, but the content beginning with, "Congregations excluded those who did not belong to covenanted churches from the Lord’s Supper and their children from baptism. In other words, even righteous men and women who arrived in New England could not partake of the sacraments until they qualified themselves to join one of the region’s churches. Although there was some variety across the region, New England’s Congregationalist churches established high standards for membership. Furthermore, in Massachusetts Bay at least, the franchise for colony-wide matters hinged on church membership.", which would support the assertion saying "early North American colonies were generally as intolerant of religious dissent as England" in the content which you removed. I'm really not very interested in this topic and just happened to stumble across your edits -- there are probably better sources related to the reversion I've let stand, but I'm not going to spend time searching for them.
That's the "but". I'll also repeat that you are welcome as a Wikipedia editor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
European Americans
If you look at my userpage you'll see I'm hardly an unregistered user and my edit was clearly not vandalism. If you can show me that the source actually mentions European Americans, please do that at the article talk page. Otherwise you are doing original research by interpreting it, and that's against our policy. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, the ad hominem is unnecessary. If you read the edit log, you will see that the user before you was Anonymous and altered a statistic on the page. I simply changed it back. The figure it was changed to is irrelevant to the page, as it includes Arabs and others who are not, by definition, "European Americans". There is already a page for Americans who self-identify as Caucasian or White. 021120x (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? I see no ad hominem at all. Please read assume good faith. And you did revert me. The IP's statistic matched the source so their edit was clearly not vandalism. Also, you haven't responded to my comment about your edit. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- European Americans
and your apparent misunderstanding of a source. The figure being presented is not relevant to the page, which has already been explained. North African ethnic groups, Middle Eastern ethnic groups, and other ethnic groups not of European origin are included in that figure. As noted from the Census Bureau 2016 ACS:
The definition of "European American" is very clearly given on the page itself. 021120x (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)"The European-origin diaspora in the United States is composed of approximately 133 million people who were either born in Europe or reported European ancestry, according to tabulations from the U.S. Census Bureau 2016 ACS. The European diaspora accounts for 41 percent of the 323 million people living in the United States."[1]
- European Americans
- You can probably use that, attributed to the Migration Policy Institute. But it isn't in the actual source,[1] which is why I added what I did. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Merge proposal
As a concerned editor of the American Revolutionary War article you might be interested in a recent proposal to merge the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) article, covering battles involving Britain and France, with the France in the American Revolutionary War article, covering the French army and navy helping in the fight for American independence. You can voice your opinion here. See Talk Page Table of contents for related discussions. -- Neutral and Anayomous.
RFC on French Revolution
The section you decided to promote to the lede again is under discussion on the talk page as part of an RFC in order to generate a consensus on the sourcing. You should probably read it before you start reverting stuff. Acebulf (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hey there, I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I noticed you posted a post about "the BritClique trying to censor the influence of the American revolution on the French revolution." ([2])
- I see that you're a relatively new editor, so I will explain a bit what's going on, since it can be a bit puzzling to see how the wiki bureaucracy moves. The discussion we are having over on the other page is a site-wide request for comments. When one is started, a message is sent to some noticeboards, which people have on their watchlists. This attracts many editors interested in the topic to generate a discussion that is more complete, and forms a consensus. It is to note that it would be generally encouraged to neutrally inform editors that they might be interested in contributing to the discussion. It is not proper to disseminate only to users which are likely to already support a certain interpretation. The latter is called canvassing, and is prohibited on Wikipedia.
- The process by which Wikipedia is built relies strongly on consensus-building, and this is why issues that editors might disagree with are discussed on the talk page. Talk page discussions, and RFCs are not votes and discussions dealing with these subjects are not decided by whoever has the most people backing them. It is also not adversarial, thought it might seem like it is sometimes. Canvassing is less productive than participating in the discussion with good arguments, which we are all open to hearing. Nothing has been decided so far, but there are issues that have been raised (by myself and others previously), relating to two different policy areas.
- Firstly, Wikipedia has a strict policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. This does not mean that Wikipedia needs to do "both sides" of an argument, but rather that articles on Wikipedia will present issues in a manner that reflects the opinion of published reliable sources. Generally, on a topic such as the French Revolution, this means that a lot of weight will be given to what is generally accepted by historians. The heaviest weight you can give to something in an article is to include it in the first few paragraphs, called the lede (people also use "lead", because that is also a word, and it means basically the same thing). This is why everything that features in the lede needs to be sourced heavily, using high-quality verifiable sources. These are things like review articles published in academic journals, as opposed to something from a website. Requirements for paragraphs in the lede are stronger than paragraphs elsewhere on the article, and those requirements highten a lot when it's a high-visibility article like the one on the French revolution.
- The problem with the culprit paragraph, in my view, is that you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact. To maintain NPOV, a lede can not state conclusions that are debatable as fact, and if they must, they must discuss the debate itself, and it is to be approached very carefully. It might be subject to debate, and there might be strong arguments to be had, but it is not a settled conclusion amongst historians. If you disagree (and you can), and you think it is accepted, you need to provide a review article that states unquivocally "it is generally accepted by historians that the American revolution was the most important factor" if you really want it to stand in the lede. Anything else would be pushing a point of view. This is why I had moved the paragraph under the "causes" section, as I though the likelihood of the paragraph surviving would be higher. You have reverted this change, but I will leave it be for the time being. Though, I don't think there is a chance it will be allowed to stay there after discussion, for the reasons previously mentioned.
- The second problem, is an issue with sourcing. This was the main point I first brought the RFC upon in the first place. Websites are not universally good sources. Some sites are better than others, and some are banned outright. History.com is one of the sites that is classed as such, because their fact-checking is notoriously lacking. You can find a link to sources and their acceptability here. (Note that "History.com" specifically was discussed in the second RFC relating to the History channel here.) Being classed as Generally unreliable means that History.com "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person." The other source at issue is a one-sentence mention of the fact, that is not significant coverage, alone.
- I hope that this clears up a couple things. Nobody is out with their censorship marker trying to discount American influence in the French revolution. We're just objecting that this statement is represented as the second-most prominent paragraph when it lacks the strong sourcing that a paragraph in the lede requires.
- Feel free to drop by with any question on either my talk page or the article's talk page. Acebulf (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Merging proposal
I just saw your notice on the ARW talk page. I'll have to check in on that. You might also want to look into the proposal to merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with the France in the American Revolutionary War being voted on and discussed on the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
Your recent editing history at French Revolution 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: a consensus for the lede was already established on October 12, even receiving explicit and clear agreement from editors who dissented to earlier article content. A user who did not know of this consensus and who became involved in the discussion far after it was agreed upon replaced those changes. Can you explain, Doug Weller, what the appropriate method is for dealing with this behavior – altering changes after a consensus has already been established? The discussion at present is (or was) focused on other matters. 021120x (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't affect the 3RR rule. Two editors have reverted you, not just one. And you are on shaky ground when you use an edit summary to attack another editor that way. You can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: thank you, but what is the policy regarding editors who refuse to comply by the consensus? The first edit undid the changes that replaced the consensus, which the same user then restored (the summary comments were a reference to the talk page). There is no expectation that agreed upon changes are supposed to be respected and upheld? This matter has already been brought to the DRN. Suppose another DRN review is held, and/or another consensus is established, and then another editor reneges on the changes, or a new editor comes in and undoes them. Do we simply continue having (a potentially endless stream of) discussions? 021120x (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on French Revolution. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do not use edit summaries to engage in personal attacks on other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: thank you, Robert McClenon. It is paradoxical that when I raised this concern regarding attacks I received from another editor, it was dismissed as being "born of frustration", but when I myself am fatigued from frustration, I receive warnings. Are you able to clarify the policy regarding editors who refuse to follow a consensus that has already been established? Doug Weller suggested bringing this to the DRN, however this has already been done. Is there nothing that establishes a consensus as binding? 021120x (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x - Your complaint of personal attacks was dismissed because you didn't identify the personal attacks when we asked. To answer your question about how to establish a consensus as binding, I can give you one wrong answer and one answer that is almost always right. The wrong answer is to invite a subset of users to DRN, which appears to be what you are trying to do. The right answer is an RFC. You have been advised several times to try an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I did identify the attacks, but the individual who read them said that they were 'just expressions of frustration'. I have not been advised "several times" to hold an RFC, I have been advised several times to go to the DRN. I followed this advice, but the discussion is currently in a paused status. I would like to continue with this process, however there is no indication that it will be productive, and some indication that it may not be. Another user involved in the discussion already attempted to hold an RFC for this matter. He is the one that should be contacted. 021120x (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:021120x - Your complaint of personal attacks was dismissed because you didn't identify the personal attacks when we asked. To answer your question about how to establish a consensus as binding, I can give you one wrong answer and one answer that is almost always right. The wrong answer is to invite a subset of users to DRN, which appears to be what you are trying to do. The right answer is an RFC. You have been advised several times to try an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)