User talk:2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2

Sorry for the trouble. I just needed help with editing a map included on the Somalia main page. The global map needs to either be the same color or Wikipedia is creating a narrative that Somalia is a divided country. The contrast of color is not beneficial for Somalia but the self-declared region 'Somaliland' that does not include the disputed region in North Somalia as well. The page is edited by biased people. People that expressed their dislike of this image is being ignored.


 * Why did you remove our conversation? Sorry, but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 04:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is not the case. I accidentally erased our conversation, I'm just not well versed about Wikipedia. I can assure you I've the confidence which is why I am disputing the matter about the unfavorite image used on the page. Silly me.


 * Please learn the basics first, IP. Like WP:INDENT and WP:SIG. I'll post a welcome message for you below with some other helpful links. El_C 04:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Somalia Wikipedia page
Yes, we are all aware of that matter but it is still unnecessary to add that global map shown in different color. If 'Somaliland' is included then it's unfair to not include the disputed region in the North called Khatumo State. Somalia political differences is already mentioned in the text. But that map is still incorrect because it's not highlighted with the same color. Please refer to the maps provided by the international organization and they don't make the contrast like Wikipedia. And all the federal states of Somalia have their own page. Please remove the image that was only added few months ago. Anyway many other users like Wadaad expressed their dislike and requested to have that image removed. Please let's not create more conflict. There are many readers that research and view that page, that show not be the first thing the see and create a narrative. It seems Wikipedia does not respect Somalia sovereignty and is pushing a agenda. Regardless if "Kx155" is in good standing or not, he is biased. Please review their matters. That global map was edited only a while ago. This is a sensitive matter.

Rather change the image to link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Mission_to_Somalia#/media/File:Location_Somalia_AU_Africa.svg or remove the image entirely.

Thank you again.


 * I do not if I deleted this message. I am just reposting.


 * Answer remains the same. Try to get consensus by arguing your case on the article talk page, in a concise and cogent way. El_C 04:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * How unfortunate. Once more, I see certain users on Wikipedia are pushing a narrative. Anyway, I will get with consensus on this matter.


 * IP I said build consensus for your desired changes on the article talk page. If that reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests you may make use of. El_C 06:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! El_C 04:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with this useful information. I honestly did not have any desire learning the usage of Wikipedia, first but since I'm not getting any assistance to edit a unwanted, unpleasant image that do not respect Somalia sovernighty when I explained the case or not allowed to get help from 'veteran' users then I've no other choice. Hopefully, later on I do not get banned. My only concern was the image that needed to be removed from Somalia's main wikipedia. I was a reader that came upon that image just like the few others that got ignored about the same concern.


 * You have to know a bit about the system in order to navigate it. You need to find out were the consensus stands on that question. So, do that. El_C 06:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up, still
Question, I have written to the Consensus talk page and my section has been completely erased from the page. Would there be a reason for that? Am I not allowed to ask on there? Was my comment deliberately deleted to avoid answering my dispute?

Futhermore, Somalia main page is restricted because many others like me opposed that map of Somalia and their requested was overwritten by individuals that want to create a narrative other than simply posting a map of Somalia in one color. Very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:AC16:FB56:A9FD:6BF2 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, that was the wrong venue for that. That talk page is for discussing Consensus as a Wikipedia policy. What you need to do is what I keep trying to tell you to do above: gauge the consensus for your desired changes on the article talk page. That is the correct venue. El_C 06:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've done that. I am taking in circles on a simple matter. Regardless, why delete my message? If I keep posting the same question on different talk page like the dispute resolution, you guys will delete or removed my message for mass message or vandalism. Ridiculous.


 * This is frustrating. And sorry for the tiresome too.


 * No, not ridiculous — you can't misuse talk pages on Wikipedia. The correct venue —the article talk page— is where you outline your case. Again, if you reached an impasse on the article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests you may make use of. El_C 06:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's agree to disagree. I will try with the Dispute resolution requests talk page this time. Wish me luck that my concern does not get deleted too.


 * Disagreeing is fine. But policy is policy — and as the uninvolved admin in this matter, I'm the one who gets to interpret it. Please familiarize yourself with a process before you engage it, or you're just gonna get frustrated for naught. Good luck. El_C 07:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The frustration is not for nothing. I am passioned about my nation and wanted to resolve a dispute like many before me on the page who simply get dismissed by the 'advanced'. Wish wikipedia was more user/editor friendly. Best of luck with raising funds!


 * Indeed, Wikipedia has a somewhat steep learning curve, but that is something that has been put in place by community agreement. Best wishes, El_C 07:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not surprising, let's hope for change soon. Stay safe and healthy.

About Dispute Resolution: I'm an experienced dispute resolution volunteer; I happened to notice the change at the Consensus policy talk page, which led me here. I'm afraid that you may find Dispute Resolution frustrating as well, at least at this point in time.

There are currently three content dispute resolution processes here at English Wikipedia, Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Request for Comments (RFC). The first two both have a strict requirement that there be extensive, recent back-and-forth discussion of the content matter in question, preferably at the article talk page. That has not occurred, so at this point in time, those processes are not available to you and any request made there will almost certainly be denied without further action. Indeed, at this point in time there has been no recent substantive discussion about the matter at all. Your postings constitute an invitation to such discussion, but none has yet occurred. (The discussions you've had with El_C have been procedural, not really about the merit or lack of merit of the content you are concerned about.)

RFC also has a discussion requirement, but it's fairly weak and you might be able to skip it except for this: The problem you're facing is that there was a previous consensus on the issue, in favor of the map, less than a year ago. While there is no doubt that consensus can change, it must be changed, which at a minimum means that you've got to get other editors interested in the change you want to make and willing to weigh in on the discussion. It thus may well be the case that if you attempt an RFC that you'll either get no interest or even have it rejected as too soon after the last consensus.

Thus, you really need to have some just regular talk page discussion before you go to RFC or other dispute resolution. If that doesn't happen, if you can't get anyone else interested, then you just need to accept that the silent consensus of the community is that the status quo is acceptable at this point in time.

One thing you need to know is that you cannot request dispute resolution at any of those processes by posting to their talk pages. To request dispute resolution you need to read the pages I've linked to, above, and carefully and completely read and follow their instructions.

Finally, please be sure to sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

How complex. I see why Wikipedia too often deserves the shaky reputation it has for reliability and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4000:A190:48B3:90E5:D299:37AF (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)