User talk:AbiquiúBoy/Archives/2023/September

PragerU

Greetings! You thanked me for my edit on PragerU, so you must see the value of it. You should join the discussion, which is dominated by some angry leftist activist who speaks of ”leftism bringing truth”. We need a more objective and fair discussion. Trakking (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Evening!

I made an edit which I believe works well for not only your edit, but also theirs. I did laugh when I saw that editor claim that 'republicans are anti truth so leftism is truth' AbiquiúBoy (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, I could not find any historians or political scientists among the critics at all! And if there aren’t, the information is false and should be removed. Could you do a double-check on them so we’re being correct? Trakking (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You do this by clicking on the links and then on the author in the articles, where it says ”this person is a journalist” etc. Or by googling their names and looking up their credentials. Trakking (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! While I do know how to look at the authors in articles, what I was struggling with was finding the right links for that entire paragraph in the first place. Maybe the criticism sub article has better links. I'll have a look👍🏻 AbiquiúBoy (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I did review it and there were 2 historians or political scientists (Kevin Kruse and Paul Gottfried) so the current compromise edit seems to be the best choice AbiquiúBoy (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Good find. Gottfried is a historian—I forgot. The other guy seems to be one as well. But there’s no political scientist, then. Could you change the text to read ”journalists, sociologists and historians”? Thank you. Trakking (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason I made that edit for the fascism article was because, like i mentioned, most people right-of-centre hold the same beliefs in social hierarchy, but it's fascism's rigorous and appalling implementation of it which makes fascism 'fascism'. Maybe we could reach a compromise on that by merging the societal implementation parts which you had mentioned? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

My intuition was right about that statement being wrong. Historians and political scientists tend to be Rightists. Journalists and sociologists, on the other hand, are often leftists. Fun fact: one of the two historians cited, Paul Gottfried, is in fact an adherent of paleoconservatism, which is a very traditionalist form of conservatism. Trakking (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Historian, ye sure might be, but political scientists? I think those are more of the liberal bent.

Journos and sociologists ye sure.

Thing is, nobody who reads the article can reasonably be expected to get that nuance. What they interpret to be the difference is that journos and sociologists are more 'biased' (regardless of affiliation) and more of a subjective source whilst historians are thought of as a way stronger and more objective source AbiquiúBoy (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A lengthy welcome

Hi AbiquiúBoy. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look out for a new editor! AbiquiúBoy (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to try to edit in areas under sanctions, please tread carefully. Comments like [1][2] could be seen as disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Point taken AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ARE comment

Just so you know, you're not supposed to reply directly in someone's section at ARE, as you did here and here. You have to add your own subsection titled "Statement by AbiquiúBoy". I suggest you remove or move your comments–if you don't a clerk will do it for you.

As for your reply to me, it is not bad faith to ask a question. It was a reasonable question given I was literally being name-called. And please do not call me "lad". ––FormalDude (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

AbiquiúBoy, I was going to say the same thing. ARE is a place where where replies aren't supposed to be nested. Springee (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

👍🏼I'll take that into consideration from now on thank you AbiquiúBoy (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, didn't know that.

It seems a lot like bad faith because ForumDude and FormalDude are so similar as to deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry if I offended you by referring to you as 'lad', it's just a habit I have on other websites

AbiquiúBoy (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Asking a question is giving the benefit of the doubt. I didn't say "You purposefully attacked me". I simply asked what they meant by it. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just came off as a little passive aggressive, especially in the context of something as heated as admin notices AbiquiúBoy (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for defending me against the disgusting accusations, although they removed your comment. Christianity often refers to the devil as the Accuser—for good reasons. Trakking (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The other guy has fully gone off the rails now smh what a waste.

No actual logic or reasoning, just fire-eater nonsense. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The removal was within reason given you posted in their section. You are allowed to restore the comment to your own section. Springee (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the guy accusing him of being a 'nazi' going off the rails and being irrational in his comments AbiquiúBoy (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that FormalDude and I have interacted quite a bit over the years I can understand why they could have read into my name change. It was instead a brain fart on my part. I didn't want to say "FD" at ARE and when in the edit window you don't see the rest of the discussion. After that, brain fart. Zooming out, AB, this is why in general it is best to not presume someone is saying something in even mild bad faith. Sometimes that presumption is true but other times it's just because tone etc is lost around here. In most cases reaching out to someone on their talk page can really help. It won't always work but on balance I've been better for it. Springee (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think quite the opposite. Given that he's interacted with you quite a bit, he should have been even more considerate and open to assume good faith as the likelhood it was a brain fart just increased AbiquiúBoy (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

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.

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science 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.
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them 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. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. [3] (after being notified about [4][5]) --Hipal (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Not quite sure which edit this is referring to AbiquiúBoy (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's evident you have absolutely 0 interest in positive discourse. Unfortunate. --Hipal (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Because he didn't reply at all to a detailed response and just brushed it aside AbiquiúBoy (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'm saying that it was inappropriate. Given the attention that is now on the situation, you're asking for a ban or block if you keep it up. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A ban or a block? I haven't even said anything in ages…? And I'm a new editor as well AbiquiúBoy (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You're working where sanctions apply. Editors formally gave you notice, and you're arguing that your subsequent comment is appropriate. Being a new editor or being unfamiliar with policy is no defense at this point. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

How am I arguing!?!?!?! I just gave the reason why i said " It's evident you have absolutely 0 interest in positive discourse. Unfortunate"

I am not interested in arguing with you guys or anything, I was providing what seemed to be a logical answer to a concern of yours AbiquiúBoy (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Thebiguglyalien is correct [6]. You've been pulled into a proxy war.

You should be focusing on content. You should be working to build consensus with others. --Hipal (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I tried doing that in the talk page section of that article no?😕 AbiquiúBoy (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

With the exceptions that I pointed out. --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

alright i'll be more mindful from now on AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)