User talk:Wendisway

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Wendisway, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Mika Tosca seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Drmies I've been editing for over a year with no problems, and that wasn't a "test". It was a legitimate edit that has been deleted for no good reason. I apologize for forgetting to sign - I didn't realize I needed to because I am using an account with my name on it. Why is my edit being deleted? It has a good, reliable source (ABC News) - and I can add more sources if you want them. This seems to be political. I broke no rules, and this is a very legitimate news story about this person. I handled it very fairly and neutrally, but it seems that someone wants this figure protected from having information about their actions that is in the news on their Wikipedia page. Wendisway (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I was trying to be nice. It may be a legitimate news story, but we are not the news. "Someone wants this figure protected"--stop it, because before you know it you're spouting conspiracy theories. NOTNEWS is relevant, and WP:BLP is highly relevant, which you should know if you've been here a year. You are welcome to discuss the matter on the talk page, or on WP:BLPN. (And there is a difference between "ABC" and the local affiliate--right, User:Russ Woodroofe?) Drmies (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  You weren't being nice, you were being condescending, pretending that my edit was a "test" from someone brand-new to Wikipedia. Regardless, this story is in the news, far more than any other information about this subject has been, and the source was a legitimate one and reliable. There really is no reason to delete the information that is not political. Tosca made the comments and the story has been widely reported. My edit used neutral language and was very fair. Wendisway (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

Hi Wendisway, your contributions to the article about Mika Tosca seem to be incompatible with the "500 edits" restriction mentioned above. Please avoid directly editing (as opposed to discussing on talk pages) about the Arab-Israeli conflict until the conditions are met; this also applies to requested move discussions ("RMs"), deletion discussions ("AfDs") and requests for comment ("RfCs"); see WP:A/I/PIA and WP:ARBECR for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I give up. My edit was not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - it merely covered public statements made by a professor at an art college that have been widely reported by news media, on the page about that professor. But since the first attack on my edit (claiming it wasn't reliably sourced when it used an ABC News story from their National Desk) failed, I guess this one is the fallback.

It's clear that the subject of this article is one of those who gets Wikipedia's very special treatment. I will leave this obviously self-published PR puff piece of an article as is. No potentially image-damaging facts permitted, no matter how newsworthy, I promise. Wendisway (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics notice

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 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. Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wendisway, in particular, I urge you to read up on relevant Wikipedia policies, including the WP:BLP policy and the WP:NOT policy (esp. WP:NOTSCANDAL, also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that, Russ. I'm also aware that your suggested edits are the worst kind of whitewashing. You are attempting to make anti-Semitic speech sound positively noble, and I'm shocked that any editor would take it that far in an effort to gloss over this incident. I neither need nor appreciate personal editing advice from someone doing that, thanks. Kindly don't try to pretend that the actual words of an article subject that have been widely reported by reliable news sources are "gossip" or "not news", either, and discuss on the article TALK page. Wendisway (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You say that you are aware of WP:NOTSCANDAL and our BLP policies, but your responses make it clear that you have not taken them to heart. I urge you to do so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's funny how whenever a Wikipedia makes disparaging remarks about any other group - LGBT or black people or Muslims, for example - it makes it into their article, word for word, within the hour without a hint of controversy. But whenever they spew hatred at Jews, suddenly there are ten editors crying about WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS and working overtime to sanitize the incident and keep their actual words off Wikipedia, while emphasizing how very quickly and nobly they apologized for the words we can't report. Wendisway (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• whenever a Wikipedia subject Wendisway (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)