User talk:JustAPoliticsNerd

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

Zenomonoz (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

jUNE 24[edit]

I susgest you rreas wp:bludgeon and wp:dropthestick, if you want to AFD the page do so, if you want to create another article do so, but do not keep on arguing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOte this is now a warning, read wp:tenditious and follow the correct procedure. 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Note: this section apparently about discussions at Talk:Drag panic. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie, I don't know why you are allowed to AfD articles, but even if you are allowed, it's nearly always a really bad idea. Get more experience first. Read WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE, with most weight on PRESERVE. We try to help articles become compliant so we can keep them. If they pass GNG, no matter what other problems, we do not AfD them; instead, we fix them. There are exceptions to every rule, but that's our main approach. It is not a virtue to AfD articles. You won't get brownie points in heaven for doing it. It's better to save them. That helps build the encyclopedia, rather than tear it down. We have unlimited capacity here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page?[edit]

I removed this comment of yours at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/California State University Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture 320-03 (Spring 2024) because it appeared to be a mistaken destination, that is, your comment has no relation to that list of student assignments at a California university. Feel free to add your comment to whatever page you meant to add it to. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/California State University Fullerton/Gender and Technoculture 320-03 (Spring 2024):

"For this assignment, students will be making contributions to Wikipedia specifically designed to correct the well-documented gender, heterosexual, white, and Western bias in this extremely influential resource."

This is what I am talking about, and I believe that was abundantly self-evident. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all appropriate for you to edit there as you aren't affiliated with WIki Ed, and pointless as that project finished months ago. And a terrible idea to post that given the alert above. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only not appropriate, this part of the comment (now removed) is quite offensive:

"I would argue, to the contrary, that this entire project is dedicated to the introduction of bias through the use of a left-wing worldview that considers its assertions so self-evident that anything standing in their way is what is biased, instead."

It's a personal attack and assumption of bad faith against editors here. We are not allowed to use an editor's political bias to discount their work. We all have biases.

It's a really bad attitude to have. It possibly reveals a battlefield mentality. Don't edit here with the goal of countering the perceived bias of reliable sources. We document their biases, without neutering them. If right-wing sources are used, we also document their biases. Unfortunately, since Trump came along, most moderate right-wing sources have moved so far to the right that they have lost connection with facts and reality, becoming propaganda outlets that are not reliable sources. That's too bad. The Overton window of political discourse has radically changed.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]