User talk:Galdrack

Hi Galdrack! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

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.

== Welcome! ==

Hi Galdrack! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya,

Thanks for the messages when I saw the warning before I avoided editing any articles that had the tag and just tried to provide suggested edits, did I edit a flagged one too? Galdrack (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Selfstudier,

I've been editing a bit and using Wiki for ages but I don't have 500+ edits yet so I dunno what exactly is the correct procedure for this. Amongst a lot of the recent spam I noticed user "Anonymous Observer1945" has been making a lot of large unsourced edits to pages of politicians/journalists critical of Israel. The reason I'm primarily flagging this is that the users first edits are from 12FEB2024, where they seem to have performed as many small edits as they could before achieving the 500 edits required to edit locked articles.

The account seems to me as a very likely spam account but again I didn't know which way to go with this. Galdrack (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are OK as long as they are an actual improvement to the article, most, perhaps not all, of their early edits appear to be an improvement even if it's only grammatical or a style issue. It's not that hard to get 500 edits in this way, you could try it yourself :)

What large unsourced edits did you have in mind? Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily around the topic of antisemitism, the articles on Jeremy Corbyn, Sadiq Khan, Mohammed el-Kurd, George Galloway amongst others, often there will be a source though not always and even then of somewhat biased/dubious perspective to the topic.

Largely it seems the minor edits were acheived to gain access to editing locked articles as the edits there have been much more frequent since and also much lengthier in text, with the recent increase in linked accounts on the topic I figured this seemed like an exact example of such an account. Galdrack (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, time will tell. If you see substantive edits being added without a source, feel free to add a {{cn}} tag. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, how does that CN tag work? I've tried reading the instructions on Wiki but I find them difficult to follow. Galdrack (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just type that what I wrote there as you see it, next to the uncited material. Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning Political views of Generation Z, someone else recently tried to remove that same section that you removed—and they were reverted by two different people. I suggest that you revert your edit and start a discussion in Talk in order to establish consensus on this controversial topic. Another reverter suggested the same thing to the previous remover. Thanks. Trakking (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trakking,

I'd suggest the opposite as the addition was only made on 13 March 2024‎ by a single user with now 2 different users reverting the addition, further the explanations for re-adding the section have been an appeal to the fact it's present and less the need/applicability of the section. I'm fine with making a talk page about the topic and it's addition/removal though leaving it added while engaging in the discussion doesn't make much sense as it isn't an integral part of the page or have a particular longevity. Galdrack (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Your latest comment has been removed from the Talk since you are not extended-confirmed, so I just want to answer here (more abstractly, since I don’t know if you’re even allowed to discuss contentious topics on your Talk page, though I’m not sure) about upholding standards of sourcing on articles:

An article with 100 bad inclusions that gets just one removed is 1% improved—arguing that a double standard is being used to justify the removal is not an argument that the removal is not an improvement. In this case, though, there’s no double standard, because WP:LISTPEOPLE mandates that people’s inclusion be supported by reliable independent sources relating to the person’s categorization as one of the list’s topic. That article is mostly unsupported inclusions, and a Talk discussion has been opened to establish criteria for inclusion. “Peace activist” may not be a term regulated by any body (as far as I know), but that doesn’t mean editors can just suss it out based on our own evaluations. Applying it to a dead person with no record of activism, whom no source calls a peace activist, and who is primarily known for suicide preceded by a short public utterance, is just not in line with Wikipedia’s policies on sourcing and verifiability.

As a final note: when I started editing Wikipedia I erroneously thought articles were holistically maintained by a particular set of editors for each, which led to me getting frustrated by apparent inconsistency within the article (and even on Wikipedia as a whole). In reality, articles (especially big lists like that one) are usually maintained by lots and lots of editors who haven’t been handling it as one big project. I, for instance, never touched the article or saw it until Bushnell was added—if I had, I would have raised the general sourcing/original research problem the article has a long time ago. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too bothered or concerned about his inclusion or removal, however a lot of the logic provided in the talk page is overwhelmingly opinion based on a rather hot topic to be fair.

The issue I do have with the logic of asking for a source on the topic is the inherent bias in referring to someone as a "peace activist" as many sources that are quite trustworthy will apply the label unequally as it's an entirely subjective title and facts (which is what determines a sources reliability) are much less relevant. I think a much better question and bar would be asking what activism he engaged in before his more famous act and if he had any history of it. Notably the fact that several sources referring to him as an "activist" were in turn dismissed because they didn't specifically use the word "Peace" which is more of a choice of grammar in the sentence rather than part of the title, and from there it inherently is ones judgement on whether he was engaging in peaceful activism or not.

"An article with 100 bad inclusions that gets just one removed is 1% improved" While I get this logic I don't agree with it as it's not the correct approach, removal of a single incident does not improve the article if it doesn't approach it from a standard that should be applied to all other entries.

By this I mean asking not for a source specifically calling him by the title but on evidence of what acts they've performed to be listed, as this is the only way anyone can be placed on a list that isn't a protected title. Galdrack (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources apply the label with some looseness and subjectivity, it's not Wikipedia's role to try and remedy that—our job is to reflect what sources say.
this is the only way anyone can be placed on a list that isn't a protected title is just not right. A source calling someone X is enough to put them on a List of X. We don't need there to be an International Commission of the Designation of X, and the absence of such a regulator does not mean that we can put our heads together and try and figure out who counts as an X despite the lack of sources designating them as such—that constitutes WP:Original research.

I won't answer your points directly about AB since I don't know if you're allowed to discuss that at all before achieving EC status, and I don't want to dig you a hole in case you're not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]