User talk:Toltol15

Welcome

Hello, Toltol15, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Rsk6400 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bow and arrow, you may be blocked from editing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing pov just like the other user, the sources clearly mention bow. Toltol15 (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to engage with the rather long discussion already on the History of Archery talk page. We have produced a form of words that reflect the statements in the sources: the artifacts are projectile points and probably arrowheads. But no bows or strings have been found, and, as one academic has remarked, the artifacts could easily be light spears / javelins. Spear-throwers are very widely distributed across the world. So our words are "points considered likely to have been arrowheads" and "probable arrowheads". We should not state certainly that they are arrowheads. In fact, they may not be. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing pov and the other user mentions it too, you are rejecting the primary sources as POV and inserting your own pov, the sources clearly mention bow and arrowheads. Toltol15 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what "pushing POV" means. RexSueciae (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend believes primary sources are POV, it's not me saying it, it's his own view, this is beyond WP:OR, an individual with views like that should not be editing Wikipedia, but I guess it's a friends club and it does not matter as long as they reach a "consensus" with other friends. Toltol15 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted with Richard Keatinge in my life. They've linked you the discussion page where the community reached its consensus re: what is and is not a bow and arrow. Reaching a consensus is literally the keystone of what Wikipedia is. I'd also note that Wikipedia, while accepting primary sources, requires secondary and tertiary sources "to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". If there's one primary source that's very new, it's best to wait and see what else the scholarly community says on the topic -- maybe next week there'll be a paper that says something completely different (and much closer to the previously accepted consensus). You don't have to take my word for it: I'm just a passing editor offering advice, not an authority of any kind. RexSueciae (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted with you in my life either but here you are on my talk page. All the sources mention bow whether they are primary or secondary and are not from this year, South Africa sources are stronger than Sri Lanka ones but you cannot mention bow for South Africa, go figure. Toltol15 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm stepping out now. My last piece of advice is that "this user disagrees with me" and "this user is pushing pov" are not congruent statements. I'm going back to editing the things I like to edit, and there's not much else I have to say unless I'm called to give a statement at the Administrator's Noticeboard or something. Take care. RexSueciae (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So somebody sent you here to provide a statement to the AN? I was not told a third party would get involved, and for the records it would have been great if you were familiar with the issue before inserting yourself in, you had access to the link as you stated and you can clearly see the other user posting quotes after quotes mentioning bow, so I am not making anything up, the other user did not even remove the word bow when I added it in the first place, he/she removed an s from arrows, so the individual was not in disagreement with me adding bow, at some point they colluded and decided to push this pov, go figure. Toltol15 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? No. Nobody sent me here. If you'd like to take it up with an administrator, that's your decision. (And seriously, "colluded"?) RexSueciae (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee an Admin will help, there was one here already and he was with them. Toltol15 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toltol15, at your stage, nobody expects you to have a clue. We would just be very happy if you were to show some willingness to learn. At a minimum, we would like you to avoid insults that demonstrate both cluelessness, and poor manners towards people who are trying to help you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making anything up, please reread what you wrote, you are pushing pov. Toltol15 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]