User talk:Rockefellerrepublican79

Welcome!
Hello, Rockefellerrepublican79, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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! Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit at Rockefeller Republican
Hello again. I noticed that after leaving you the welcome message above, you once again inserted unsourced material into the Rockefeller Republican article, which had previously been removed by another editor after your first edit there. You left the following edit summary:
 * I edited the political ideology. I took away centre-right since in today's world, these types of Republicans wouldn't be seen as right leaning. I added Mitt Romney as the governor since he is seen overall as a moderate or liberal Republican and I added Eisenhower since he has similar views and is listed as a Rockefeller Republican. If you take it off, tell me why.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for leaving a detailed edit summary. This is very helpful to other editors who follow the article.

As to the content of your edit, all assertions of fact in Wikipedia must be WP:Verifiable, and the best way to demonstrate this is by adding a citation to a reliable source. As you did not do so, I removed your edit from the article. Don't worry, your content isn't gone, it's preserved in the history of the article, so if you want to put it back, you can, as long as you accompany it with a citation. (Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that: you can't put it back until at least 24 hours have passed, because this article is in a contentious topic area, and special restrictions on editing are in effect there, including the 24-hour delay. But after that, you could, in theory, put it back.)

Back to your edit summary for a moment: while an edit summary is very helpful, placing your own opinion or speculation there is not helpful. Where you said, "wouldn't be seen as right leaning", or "since he has similar views"—that is just your own interpretation or opinion, and as Wikipedia editors, we never edit an article based on what our opinion is. Here is a highly simplified view of how to edit at Wikipedia:
 * 1) Choose a topic you are interested in, and read a bunch of reliable sources about the topic.
 * 2) If the sources disagree, note the majority view, and any significant minority views; ignore the fringe.
 * 3) Write up a summary of the most important points they make about the topic, in your own words. Forget everything you know about the topic personally, or through study, and use *only* your sources.
 * 4) Edit the article, add your summary write-up, and citations for all the sources you used, and Publish it. (It's best to use Preview mode first, to make sure you didn't make any typos, grammar problems, etc.)

In a nutshell, that's all we do here. All that stuff in your edit summary about "centre-right because this..." or "Mitt Romney because that...", just forget it all; our opinions don't matter. Just go read your sources, summarize the main thread, add citations, and that's it.

It's hard enough to learn how to become a Wikipedia editor from scratch; in choosing to edit a contentious topic like the Rockefeller Republican article, you've made it that much harder for yourself. I urge you to get some experience first in articles that are not contentious, but it's your call.

There's one more wrinkle. I alluded to "contentious topics" a couple of times. Normally, for someone who edited twice and was reverted twice at a contentious topic like this one, I would leave you another message right after this one, containing a standardized message about contentious topics from the Arbitration Committee, which you can think of as Wikipedia's Supreme Court. However, because you are a brand new editor, I'll leave that off for now, because you have enough on your plate to deal with, just getting on board. You might want to go have a look at the message anyway; you can view it here. It's inevitable you'll get one of these sooner or later f you keep editing that article (everyone should, so don't worry about it too much) but for now, just be aware that the hammer comes down harder and sooner if you make mistakes in this area, so step softly and don't try to push the envelope at contentious topics if you want to stay out of trouble.

If you have questions, or you would like assistance with editing, feel free to contact me at my talk page; or, you can ask at the Teahouse or the WP:Help desk. Hope this helps, and once again, Welcome! Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)