User talk:Jimmkk

August 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at 2024 Summer Olympics medal table. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 Summer Olympics medal table. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this doesn't apply to Evibeforpoli? Ofcourse, he can change the China page, the US page as well as the medal page to his liking numerous times but you are only talking to one party?

I didn't even change the order for most golds. This was the one thing which was at the heart of all discussions. Evibeforpoli unilaterally changed it to alphabetical.. even though other editors disagree. And I have not reverted it at all, but you are telling me I am the one who is reverting things.

Please take a closer look before you make any assumptions and try to follow the conversation in the talks too and see what has been agreed upon. I have only made improvements to ensure no/least controversy after a week of discussion. I have gone against my own wordings and my own stands to ensure consensus and least controversy.

Jimmkk (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes were disagreed to as well, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue your changes were uncontroversial. As previously discussed, please seek consensus instead of repeatedly reverting back to your preferred version. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact I am noticing that you are eager to go against everyone including admins, just to back your stances, regardless of what others are saying." – Do you want to elaborate more on your stance that I'm apparently going against admins? Admins have no power or higher authority in a dispute unless someone is behaving inappropriately, but, for the record, I haven't done anything to "go against" any admins. They may assess consensus, but their opinion is not weighted more than anyone else's and their decisions can certainly be questioned. You seem to mistakenly be under the assumption that it's me against everyone, but I've repeatedly pointed you to the discussion which shows your changes weren't supported by people other than just myself. The changes are contentious, as is evidenced by the ongoing long term discussions.

Lastly, even if you believe your changes are improvements, you do not edit war, which is the reason I've not reverted you even though I feel very strongly. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:2024 Summer Olympics medal table, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. "A certain person is on the CCP payroll so it makes sense that they would go at lengths to put CCP first..." is not an appropriate statement to make about other editors who disagree with you, as you did here. Frankly I see no reason not to assume you're talking about either myself or the other editor that's been discussing the issue of putting China ahead of the US at that talk page. We all want to improve Wikipedia and casting aspersions is not appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about you at all and you know that. It's about the only person who is even making the kind of statements that CCP does. I have read numerous articles on China Daily and People's Daily. The language here and the kind of statements bear clear resemblance to CCP line of thought.

Just read this-

"I made this edit recently, which will likely be opposed by same edit warring editors and so creating this discussion. It to state China as being the only modern country, other than US, to have topped gold medal count at an olympics without having a home ground advantage.

I reviewed Wikipedia’s core content policies - 'Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original Research (NOR)'and believe that exclusion of that edit, conflicts with these guidelines.

1. 'Neutral Point of View (NPOV)':

Wikipedia should provide fair balanced coverage. Historically and consistently in many recent Olympic articles, whenever there's notable info like US winning its 1000th gold medal in 2016 Olympics or UK becoming the first country to increase medal tally after hosting a games, they are included in lead without issues. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics This year also had plenty of historic firsts and to ensure neutrality and fair treatment, China’s achievement of being the only modern country, other than US, to finally top gold medal count without home ground advantage, should receive mention too without issues. Failing to do so while mentioning that UK in 2016 merely increased medal count right after hosting games), only creates a biased view by acknowledging only certain countries' achievements.

2. 'Verifiability': The Verifiability policy ensures that all content on Wikipedia is supported by reliable, published sources. Here are just a few examples of reputable outlets confirming China’s achievement:

NBC Philadelphia: Stated that the U.S. and China ended with 40 gold medals each—a first for the Summer Games—emphasizing that this was a tie rather than a win based solely on gold count.(https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/paris-2024-summer-olympics/medal-count-who-won-most-golds-united-states-china-olympic-history/3941130/).

3. No Original Research (NOR)': I received replies claiming that China came second on gold medal tally but that reasoning isn't supported by reliable sources but just made up by anon editors.

Wikipedia’s NOR policy prohibits the use of unpublished arguments or interpretations. The removal of China's achievement, despite substantial coverage by reliable sources, appears to favor editor-created narratives over verifiable facts. Wikipedia should not replace documented facts with personal interpretations or original reasoning.

Additionally, on China's unique status as the only modern country, besides US, to top the gold medal count without competing on home soil:

Newsweek: Also underscores this historic accomplishment, highlighting China's achievement in topping the gold medal chart without a home advantage. (https://www.newsweek.com/olympic-medal-count-show-china-making-history-team-usa-cant-stop-them-1937541).

These sources clearly establish widespread recognition of China’s accomplishments at the 2024 Olympics. To align with Wikipedia's core policies, it is essential to reflect this information in the article." Jimmkk (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]