User talk:BabbleOnto

Welcome!

Hello, BabbleOnto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbleOnto, given you've now been advised that COVID-19 is a contentious topic if you continue edit warring at Gain-of-function research you will find yourself the subject of a noticeboard report. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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. — Newslinger talk 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you felt the need to put the same notice below a notice which was already left 19 days ago? Other than a thinly-veiled threat? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BabbleOnto, the previous notice was advising that COVID-19 is a contentious topic. The one provided by @Newslinger advises that post-1992 American politics is a contentious topic. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which post-1992 American politics article did I edit? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Special:Diff/1264713915, you edited the Reactions to the Mueller special counsel investigation article, which is covered under the "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed" contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 07:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot I made that edit. My apologies. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Your recent editing history at Gain-of-function research shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've posted on my talk page warning me I'm engaging in an "edit-war" for reverting changes. I also notice you have not left any similar warning on the person who is reverting my changes with equal frequency. Could you explain this? BabbleOnto (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. First, since you are a new user, I'm assuming good faith as we may not have noticed, but it's not not 1 person reverting you, it's 2, which means obviously NOT with equal frequency. Also 3 editors disagree with you on the talk page. So to be clear, as the person trying to insert the new text, when reverted, you need to wait for the discussion to reach consensus BEFORE reinserting the text (see WP:BRD). You wrongfully tried to reinsert your text multiple times when there was clearly no agreement among the editors. The other editors rightfully reverted you. This is why you are the only one receiving this warning. If you have any question, let me know. --McSly (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you could be banned from Wikipedia

Your recent comments at WP:FTN illustrate that you still have much to learn about how to write about WP:FRINGE topics at this website. You may wish to step back and learn more about that prior to pontificating in the way you did. If you do not modify your approach, you may find yourself looking at a topic ban or worse from arbitration enforcement. jps (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Threatening me in an attempt to get me to stop defending my edits is highly inappropriate. Trying to scare me into withdrawing from arbitration proceedings is reprehensible. So long as I think my edits are within the rules I will continue to explain why I'm making them. I will defend my edits because I believe they are within the rules.

Thanks. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the guy threatening you is a pro at this and has gotten several good faith editors banned within the past year. As you have already noticed the rules don't count for much in this area, and you are badly outnumbered. - Palpable (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the rules don't count for much in this area

Indeed, as I have come to find. When all which is required is consensus, rules fail to mean anything if two wolves may overthrow them to eat a single lamb.

I had hoped I could find solace, refuge with a fervent adherence to the rules and policies. But alas, the rules mean whatever a two people against one shall dictate. Truly, 1+1=3 if two people agree that it does and one objects. If two people, commenting the exact same thing, within minutes of each other, agree, that is.

It is no matter. The hens always come home to roost. Every ill-constructed dam will fail, not if but when. We cannot concern ourselves with the misgivings of others, we can only ensure that we act appropriately.

If I shall be banned for caring about the rules too much, I bore the mark of Cain from the beginning. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your disillusionment but suggest that you walk away, calm down a bit, and then think about what you are trying to accomplish. This is a collaborative project and picking fights that you know you are going to lose is pretty much the definition of disruptive. - Palpable (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sympathy. I do not appreciate your condescension.

I do not know I will lose, nor am I picking fights. I am trying to constructively edit articles according to the rules. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got indefinitely banned earlier this month after being accused of sockpupptry and trolling after my first four edits. The admin culture here is unfortunately, undeniably toxic at the moment, with quite a few admins completely ignoring WP:DONTBITE and WP:ADMINACCT. Luckily there are still some who will hear reason, and some who will even bring these conversations into more visible areas. Good luck out there. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your first account?

Your arguments on WP:FTN and Gain-of-function research show extensive experience with Wikipedia policy despite your short history here. Of course, everyone is entitled to create a new account if they want, and you may just have previously edited anonymously; nobody is required to reveal who they were in the past under normal circumstances, either. But per WP:BADSOCK there's a lot of restrictions on doing so, especially if it avoids scrutiny, and given the concerns above and your fairly intense contributions to a controversial topic area it seems reasonable to ask you if you have older accounts you could reveal to allay possible concerns. --Aquillion (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first and only Wikipedia account.

I have tens of thousands of contributions to other MediaWiki-based websites. This is why I have an extensive experience with formatting and WP policies. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]