User talk:Félix An

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.

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.

TarnishedPath^talk 00:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

Hi Félix An, I have reverted your recent edits to Tower of Babel, since they changed the phrasing of the introduction as well as the hatnote; the current wording has been discussed (many times) at the article talk page, with a very strong consensus in favour of the factual and neutral expression origin myth. Please see the article talk page and its archives. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea,

The RfC seems to be 3 years ago, and I have brought something new with my WP:BOLD changes, since I cited several scholarly WP:RS sources. I can cite more if you'd like. Through WP:3RR, I will restore the changes. I would be happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page. Thanks Félix An (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't use 3RR as an excuse to remove long standing text agreed to by an Rfc. I've reverted you. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Just saw your warnings above. 3RR is not an entitlement either, you can be blocked even without reaching or going over it. Not by me obviously. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit warring warning

You warned User:Hob Gadling against edit warring here, wrongly stating that they had "reverted to restore [their] preferred version of an article several times". What they had done was actually revert your own addition once, clearly stating their reason in the edit summary. Also, the wording of the "soft" warning template you used was only suitable for talking to a new user, not a highly experienced one as in this case ("The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware.." etc). Thirdly, if anybody would be expected to take the issue to talk ("All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus"), it would be you, not HG. (Compare WP:BRD.) Since you used this ill-fitting warning template so inappropriately, you'll probably be better off using your own words. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

OK, I will not use that template again. But I have to say, Hob's answer was so harsh. I doubt I will sleep well tonight. I already have two classes and a project in university to worry about, and I don't want more stress. Félix An (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have replied at the Help Desk, since you wrote a similar post there. Bishonen | tålk 12:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

Contentious topics alert for all geneder related pages

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, acknowledged, thank you. Félix An (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. I have reverted you recent edits to the page Drag panic to an earlier stable version.

As you will be aware, this article has been nominated for a title change, deletion and merge previously, but the consensus was that the current title is the most accurate WP:COMMONNAME, and that its use is reflected in scholarly literature as well as the news. It is therefore WP:NPOV to refer to the standard common name, although if there is debate about the terminology among RS, this could go in a terminology/discussion section.

To avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, we should use RS.

I would like to invite you to use the WP:BRD process to discuss any outstanding issues on the talk page. There is a current discussion about bias and POV, so it may be helpful to add your proposed text there and then make these changes/edits only once a consensus has been reached. It may be that there is a compromise that can be reached in further distinguishing, for example, between drag panic as an idea and the protests that occur and which reference the tropes of drag panic.

Lewisguile (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)