User talk:Pizpa

Welcome!

Hello, Pizpa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! jlwoodwa (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you new friend! By the way, I have written something you may be interested in on my user page. See you around! Pizpa (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pizpa! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Wikipedia:Conduct During Disagreement. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi Pizpa,

I saw your profile page and some of your comments. There is not much to disagree with, it's solidly nuanced.

I mostly wanted to say that in most Wikipedia pages, you will not encounter the same kind of behaviors as with other users on the LessWrong edit war. Personally, I frequently edit articles related to artificial intelligence, and almost never get into heated debates. Most of the time, you can just be WP:BOLD and modify articles directly, which makes the editor experience more fluid and fulfilling; talk pages being there only for contentious points. Sometimes it doesn't feel productive to insist on a particular point of contention when there are various other things that could be improved with less effort. If you want to search for articles on a topic you want to focus on, you could check categories. And if you want to estimate the impact of your edits, maybe you could give a check to Pageviews.

See no obligation in my message, if you think it's important, continue. I just wanted to note that in case these discussions feel endless and frustrating, there are various other problems on Wikipedia articles to fix, concepts to better explain, and information to add, etc. Alenoach (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for dropping by Alenoach! It sounds like we have some common interests.

I think my extreme devotion to fixing a misleading sentence fragment on a backwater page has slightly baffled everyone, even me. But I understand now that it was an experiment, to prove something. It is proof that Wikipedia's policies can be wielded to help break through conflicts between well-intentioned editors with powerful ulterior motives, and help us focus on the true purpose of the project: informing people without pushing them straight to our own conclusions.

I do not see ulterior motives as inherently bad. When we do not know each other, all motives begin as ulterior. Sometimes I wonder if we were to acknowledge them more openly, we might more efficiently discover ways to collectively align our truths and our goods. Distributed consensus should be a journey, not only a destination. With so many powerful minds and hearts contributing, there is the power to transform all of us in delightfully unexpected ways. Pizpa (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]