User talk:Observer157

February 2023[edit]

Hi Observer157! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help! Is it kosher to add factual info to note if someone publishes an article about something? I will be mindful of the ‘minor’ checkbox moving forward Observer157 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying directly earlier. It is ok to add something factual. However, it needs to be verifiable.

The claim that US did the sabotage was from a self-published piece, based on an anonymous source. If it was published in a notable and reliable newspaper, it can possibly be reliable if the editoral team and the management throw their weight behind it. But it was not published there, but one's own platform (see WP:SPS). It does not matter if the person who wrote it is a prize winner or not. There is no editoral oversight, or other people's or institution's reputation to consider or rely on. If there are no other neutral parties who are able to verify the claim, we should not add it in. As it is, it is speculative.

The claim being written in the sabotage article is fine, since that claim is noted in other news articles (but not verified yet). And that piece has a section for speculations as well. But for Nord Stream, it is meant to be brief so that readers can be directed to the articles that are written in depth, thus it is better to just stick to the bare facts and leave the speculations out.

There is also the matter of undue weight. For a paragraph that short, your edit can come across as a biased point of view, giving that speculation an unequal amount of attention. – robertsky (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nord Stream. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. the claim is unsubstantiated, unverified. it is WP:UNDUE. Please stick to the known facts. – robertsky (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Nord Stream 2, you may be blocked from editing. – robertsky (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions[edit]

Hey. Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]