User talk:Cjslaby

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sara B. Pritchard has been accepted
 Sara B. Pritchard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Sara_B._Pritchard help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! TJMSmith (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Khadi; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Here is the diff in question. NedFausa (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2020 (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.
 * Dear NedFausa, why are you deleting things (e.g., my reply to you on your talk page)? I hope my response was not inappropriate in any way. --Cjslaby (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * no worries, your comment on Ned's talk page was completely appropriate. I'm looking at the page+your explanation right now, and I'll leave you a message in a few minutes. Alyo  (chat·edits) 17:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Starting over
Hey Cjslaby, sorry for some of the miscommunication so far--Wikipedia has been around for a long time and has developed a ton of policies that newbies obviously have no idea about, and it's our job to better explain those so that you're not left in the dark. First, "edit warring" is just our term for undoing other editors work repeatedly. It's a very broad definition so yes, when you undid MaterialScientist's edit here, that technically constituted edit warring. I personally would not have warned you as NedFausa did, as your edit was pretty clearly good faith and talking through it was a better option (which you even tried to do on the talk page!). For now, don't re-add that link until there's been more discussion, or else some over-zealous editor may try to report you under the letter of that policy. I'll help to guide that discussion if you'd like.

Now, as to the actual link. When you first added it, Prolix undid your edit with this edit summary: "What is this reference for? where is it used in the article? please use the talk page or edit summary to explain your rationale". By any large, references on wikipedia are used to support specific statements. When you add an entire book to the references section, that doesn't help our readers to verify the content that's in the wikipedia article. Maybe the better place is in a "Further Reading" (here's the relevant policy for that), but Prolix's concerns are especially true when, based on the title of the book, we have no idea how much of the book is about Khadi specifically.

Now, I don't know if you have access to the book, but if you do I highly recommend that you use it to cite statements already in the article or even expand the article yourself with it as a source. If not you're welcome to discuss with other editors on the talk page why you think that book should be included as a general reference at the end, but other editors would be within their rights to question why this piece and this piece alone is qualified to be included on the page above anything else. I'm happy to answers any other questions as they come up, just let me know how I can help! Alyo (chat·edits) 18:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I object to your misrepresentation of the timeline. I personally would not have warned you as NedFausa did, you write, as your edit was pretty clearly good faith and talking through it was a better option (which you even tried to do on the talk page!). In fact, Cjslaby's first attempt at "talking through it" on the talk page came 11 hours, 15 minutes after I reverted his edit warring, not before it. NedFausa (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you're misunderstanding me. I would not have posted a template warning for those edits regardless. The timeline makes no difference to me. The fact that this user was then proved to be a good faith editor who has engaged in every meaningful way possible just adds to why a warning is not necessary. Help the newbies instead. It's a little bit more work but you run less of a risk of scaring them off. Alyo  (chat·edits) 19:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing
You're relatively new to editing and I don't want to bite newbies, but I think you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy on "canvassing". Basically, trying to recruit other editors to come to a page to support you is frowned upon. The policy I've linked to explains this in more detail. Another policy to read is WP:MEAT. You're obviously welcome to contribute, but just please be aware of these policies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the friendly warning. What a place this is. Anonymous people on the internet coming to "aid" someone by telling them that asking for help to provide more information on a subject--on the talk page, mind you, not actually as an edit to the page itself--is frowned upon. I tried to word my comments carefully. If you think I'm acting inappropriately and am canvassing, then please go ahead and call for the appropriate sanctions. But again, before you do that please take careful note of my wording. I never called for anyone to specifically confirm what I think to be true, let alone to come to the page "to support" me, unless you consider providing more sources about what historians have said about the 1619 Project somehow some sort of biased support in favor of me. I simply asked for more data, as it is my sense that the coverage on the page is not presenting an accurate picture of the reception of the project by historians overall. Clearly you don't like that, which is fine, you're allowed your opinions and feelings, but I don't see what I've said as meeting the standards of "canvassing," or my actions as otherwise inappropriate; just because you disagree with what someone is saying or doing doesn't mean you get to invoke some random Wikipedia policy to stop them. The 1619 Project is not in my direct area of research (and as I've said elsewhere, as a historian I have my own criticisms of it), but I find it quite frustrating to see people so resistant to ascertaining what is true about this field, using the policies of this website to stymie what otherwise should be an attempt to know and represent reality. I recognize that this is the way of Wikipedia and is true of many corners of the internet, but I am a real person using my real name and engaging only in topics in which I have a particular expertise; I shall not debate with random strangers on the internet, even on here, at least any further, about whether finding out what's actually true on a certain subject has merit. Yes, I obviously am welcome to contribute, and I shall do so. Cjslaby (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There was nothing wrong with your participation at the talk page for The 1619 Project. I'm referring to "off-Wiki canvassing", which means asking people outside of Wikipedia to come support you. I'm not trying to discourage you from participating, but canvassing does undermine Wikipedia's consensus-based editing model, because it allows whoever calls in the most people to their side to get their way. I'm just asking you to follow the rules - rules that prevent a volunteer project that anyone can edit from descending into chaos. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing. I asked colleagues for information on the responses of historians to the 1619 Project. And I specifically said: "if you happen to be a historian *and a Wikipedia editor,* please join the cause! I want to be clear: this isn't about necessarily 'supporting' the 1619 Project. It just seems to me the coverage is skewed, even inaccurately so." (emphasis added) The fact that you're equating professional historians possibly participating on that Wikipedia page to it descending into chaos is exactly part of the problem. Wikipedia editors should be delighted that professional historians are taking time out of their busy lives to contribute to Wikipedia (I don't mean me, I just mean in general). Instead we get this. Ironically, the thing you're claiming to be concerned about here--the loudest voices making the biggest splash, distorting what is and actually should be a more nuanced process--is exactly the concern I'm raising about both much of the public coverage of the response of historians to the 1619 Project and how that's being represented here on Wikipedia. I don't want anyone to come support me. I want the 1619 Project Wikipedia page to as accurately as possible represent what the reaction of historians has been to that project. It is my view that the rules of Wikipedia are not (nor should they be) in conflict with that. Cjslaby (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, your messages absolutely do constitute canvassing. It's clear from your messages that you're looking for editors to help you change the overall tone of the article. As WP:CANVAS makes clear, messages seeking additional editors should only be placed in neutral fora (your Twitter feed is not a neutral forum, because it is likely to draw in your friends and followers, but somewhere like WikiProject History is a neutral forum), and they should be phrased neutrally (e.g., "There is an ongoing discussion at The 1619 Project that could benefit from more editors", not "join the cause!" or "It just seems to me the coverage is skewed, even inaccurately so"). On Wikipedia, the balance of coverage in secondary sources (what you're describing as "the loudest voices making the biggest splash") is generally supposed to determine content. The balance of editors is not supposed to matter, and that's why the rules prohibit calling in additional editors to support your position.
 * Look, it's up to you if you want to follow the rules or not. I've pointed you to the policy pages on "canvassing" and "meatpuppetry", and I've tried to explain to you why those behaviors are not accepted on Wikipedia. Anyone - historian or not - can edit Wikipedia, as long as they respect the rules. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your user page
You must not try to advertise your professional skills on your user page. Please don't do that again. See User pages for further information. Deb (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not advertising my professional skills, I'm simply saying who I am. It's a bio. Unlike many others on here, I think it's important to actually state who I am. It is exceptionally inappropriate that someone else would go so far as to delete something so innocuous as a basic biography. Cjslaby (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Your rationale appears to be "it's a bio". That leads to the impression that you think the user place is an appropriate place to post a personal bio. That's not quite correct. The primary purpose of user page is to talk about you as an editor. It is very likely that such a discussion might include areas of interest, and that discussion might include professional qualifications such as stating that you are in an historian. Many longtime editors provide additional information that is not directly related to their editing activities, but the primary purpose of user page is a discussion of your role as an editor.
 * It's my opinion that a twitter handle provides zero information about your activities as an editor and had I contributed to the discussion, it would've been my opinion that the removal was warranted. I get the impression you think this is an astounding conclusion which would be if the purpose of a user page was to write a personal biography, but that's not quite the purpose.
 * I do see that the discussion resulted in a tentative conclusion that the Twitter handle should be restored and I'm not going to override that decision. My reason for posting is that if you felt Deb's edit was not supportable, I think it was supportable and the right action. I accept that the current consensus differs from my view. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do see that the discussion resulted in a tentative conclusion that the Twitter handle should be restored and I'm not going to override that decision. My reason for posting is that if you felt Deb's edit was not supportable, I think it was supportable and the right action. I accept that the current consensus differs from my view. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do see that the discussion resulted in a tentative conclusion that the Twitter handle should be restored and I'm not going to override that decision. My reason for posting is that if you felt Deb's edit was not supportable, I think it was supportable and the right action. I accept that the current consensus differs from my view. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I appreciate your perspective. I will update my user page and tailor it to specifically address my role as an editor, including my interests and qualifications. I recognize your view that a Twitter handle provides zero information about one's activities as an editor; I strongly disagree with that for many reasons, including the fact that people can and do use social media like Twitter to share information about particular Wikipedia pages, editing projects, things like edit-a-thons, etc. My Twitter account is not a direct extension of who I am as a Wikipedia editor but as I come to both Twitter and Wikipedia as a historian, they are also not unrelated. I also like the idea of including it because I personally value transparency; I am not a random, unknown anonymous person on the internet, I am a real person using my real name and identity. I therefore think it's useful, logical, and reasonable to include the link for people to better understand who I am, what I might be doing here, and why. I fully support any agreed-upon efforts to keep Wikipedia working as it should be. I think a user linking to their rather innocuous Twitter account does not contravene that. And as I said elsewhere, as soon as I've got my own website, I'll be sure to link to that instead, as that seems even more common and acceptable. I hope and believe that we all share the common goal of Wikipedia as a high-quality source for information built and maintained by a large community of well-meaning volunteers. Cjslaby (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Undeleted
I've undeleted the user page, based on Deb's comments at the help desk. I understand it was a frustrating experience. I'd just ask you to consider this: Wikipedia get a real firehose of spam and self-promotion, 24/7/365. We have to rely on the judgement of admins who spend a lot of their volunteer time trying to prevent it from overwhelming the place. They get it right a vast majority of the time. Sometimes they get it wrong. More often, it's somewhere on a spectrum of self-promotion, and there's disagreement where to draw a sharp bright line, and it gets drawn too close to the "harmless" end of the spectrum. It's hard. We're also unfortunately becoming more and more bureaucratic; If Deb had not agreed to the undeletion, we certainly have a mechanism in place for a community review of admin decisions i could have steered you to, but I suspect it would have been quite a hassle for you to go that route, so I'm glad she let me do it this way.

Please accept that Wikipedia is not always the utopian, zero conflict, error-free place that I'm sure Academia and History Twitter are.... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and, I truly appreciate it.  Alyo  (chat·edits</b>) 15:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both!! I fear I'll never quite grow comfortable with all of this. I recognize that there are people on here like Deb who do a lot of work to get rid of a lot of junk. What ends up being frustrating for someone like me is that I don't spend that much time on Wikipedia (and when I do it's not as a random, anonymous person, it's as someone with a real identity, that's easy to confirm, and that itself helps make sense of what I might be doing on Wikipedia and why) and this is at least the second time that an overworked seasoned editor has done something quickly, I've tried to explain myself (of course reasonably, in my view), and all to no avail. Maybe I'm making too much of this as being specific to the internet or Wikipedia but I always feel like if this was an in-person or face-to-face encounter, things could have been resolved more easily. Alas.


 * "Wikipedia is not always the utopian, zero conflict, error-free place that I'm sure Academia and History Twitter are" If I knew how to put a gif in here of Robert De Niro calling you a "funny guy" I would! Someone very much knows what they're talking about! Thanks again for all the help and a speedy and positive resolution! Cjslaby (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)