User talk:AnExtraEditor

Welcome!
Hi AnExtraEditor! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
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 Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you been keeping up with our discussion on improving this article? There are serious issues with it as it stands. Please do not automatically revert edits until we can agree on a consensus opener, as this seems most fair, would you agree? AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. 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: 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hey @Sideswipe9th. Please engage in the Talk page to come to a consensus. I have encouraged those who have not yet talked, but are reverting edits on the article nonetheless. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the article talk page, where I have been engaging with you since mid-July. The content you have edit warred in is non-neutral and not supported by reliable sources. Please self-revert and restore the longstanding consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the sources I canvassed are all reliable, ranging from left to centre and right. Anti-woke is a good descriptor of the org, from The New Yorker I believe, among other publishers. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Just an additional note, in that discussion, if I understand right, you repeatedly attempted to ping editors who you felt shared your views on how the article should be changed (and didn't ping other people from the same older discussions), here and here. That would have been WP:CANVASSing and is against policy. Fortunately that isn't how you ping people so it didn't do anything, but it's something to avoid doing in the future - because we operate by consensus, inviting a bunch of people who you believe agree with you to a discussion can be disruptive because it could create the false impression of support for your posiiton. If you need outside opinions it's better to invite them at a neutral noticeboard like WP:NPOVN or by starting an WP:RFC; if you feel you must ping people from previous discussions it's important to do so evenhandedly and invite everyone on all sides of prior disputes. I wouldn't usually bring this up so swiftly, but canvassing is difficult to reverse (you can't unring a bell), so it's important to make sure everyone is aware that it's not allowed. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion, I understand you may disagree with certain concerns that have been raised. I’m concerned you’re trying to dismiss these or discredit these instead of engaging with them, and finding a consensus.
 * the authors I listed (your right I couldn’t tag them all outside of the thread they participated in), as my comment explicitly states, were editors whose concerns didn’t seem to be taken seriously by the 1-2 editors who they were discussing with, and who at least one of which we were informed is now suspended from this article.
 * If you look at their contributions you will see they do not all agree, - it’s just they were all trying to engage with the now suspended editor, with no success.
 * i appreciate you informing me of this policy, being Im new though. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Listing them is fine; pinging them to draw their attention to the discussion isn't, because it would lead to editors calling in people who agree with them every time they end up in a dispute and would contribute to discussions turning into WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any relationship with the organisations whose articles you are editing?
Doug Weller talk 14:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * that would go against wiki policy. I found the articles on them to have issues with NPOV.  AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not actually a direct answer. Doug Weller  talk 20:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yikes. If it wasn’t clear, the answer is no. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 06:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean politically balanced
I'm happy to clarify. Your focus on political bias isn't helpful. --Hipal (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * NPOV means: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * The issue is that the above discussion has indicated how the opener is not proportional (whether that is a result of editorial bias I don't think matters so much, and isn't worth arguing over). And that is not addressing the issues with the opening sentence not being reflected even by the sources it cites. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So yes, please clarify your specific objections in the discussion. There are outstanding specific concerns not addressed yet. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've not made such a case, and your focus elsewhere detracts from your policy-based arguments. That's why I started this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to say, the case is very clear. You may not agree with it, but many others see the issues. I think @Springee probably put it most clearly in their one comment recently. You disagree with all these points raised? AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A clear case would identify each source, summarize it's reliability, quote what the source says, and identify exactly what content the source supports and to what degree. Then provide a policy-based summary of how all the sources support specific content changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)