User talk:Unredacthefacts

May 2022
Hi Unredacthefacts! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Madam C. J. Walker several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:Madam C. J. Walker, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''While "several times" is an overstatement in this case, the purpose of this note is provide some guidance about Wikipedia's policies. I will also leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia.''. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome Unredacthefacts! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello, Unredacthefacts. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

 Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:WelcomeVisual/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]


 * Dear S0091 -
 * Thank you for the Wikipedia welcome.
 * If I understand correctly, you are an official Wikipedia editor or do you specifically manage Madam C.J. Walker's Wikipedia page? Are you disputing describing the "Madison Parish Plantation" as a "forced labor camp"?
 * The comment I am reading from you about this edit that I made states, "Need sources that describe it this way". If I understand correctly, the lack of sources was your reason for disputing the edit I made. Are there other reasons for the dispute?
 * I have sources that describe plantations as forced labor camps. Here is the source, from National Geographic. If I add one of the sources, will you keep the edit?
 * Sincerely Unredacthefacts (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Unredacthefacts, I am an editor but there is nothing "official" about it. I am as official as you, other than I have may have more experience. Honestly, I think the changes you have made across various articles are or will likely be viewed controversial by the editing community, which is evidenced by at least one other editor than me reverting a couple of them.  Therefore, the appropriate action is to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk pages so you can gain consensus for your changes and you will need sources to support your suggestions.  You may also find WP:Talk pages helpful.  If you have have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse.  S0091 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, S0091. I appreciate your feedback.
 * Per your suggestion, I placed a discussion on the Talk page for "Plantation" and Madam C.J. Walker.
 * I also read the "Revert" Wikipedia page. While I appreciate your dialogue here, what is concerning for me is that I complied with your reason for reverting my edit by providing a source for "forced labor camps" to describe plantations, in this Talk page, yet you did not respond to me that this would be acceptable to returning my edit of "forced labor camp", nor did you answer my other questions.
 * Therefore, I am finding it difficult to reach good faith in your reversion of my edit. Furthermore, per the Revert Wiki, it recommends that editors first place a comment on an editor's talk page before reverting it. You did not do that to my first edit to Madam C.J. Walker's page - first one made on May 15, 2022. Why is that? I question if the deletion of forced labor camp to describe the plantation referenced in her "Early Life" section was more than a lack of a source. Please help me reach good faith in your reversion by answering all of my questions.
 * Also, one editor reverted one edit to the Plantations page. You are the only other editor who has reverted my edits to Plantation, Plantation complexes in the Southern United States, and Madam C.J. Walker. Since I am new here, please explain why the edits I made on the other two articles would be deemed controversial by the editing community, as you stated.
 * Re-sharing the "Explain Reverts" section from the "Revert" Wikipedia page:
 * Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.
 * A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor, and greater harmony.
 * In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.
 * If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around ; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.
 * Thank you kindly, Unredacthefacts (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around ; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.
 * Thank you kindly, Unredacthefacts (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please see also WP:MINOR. You are wrongly marking edits as "minor" when they are quite clearly substantial changes to the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Ghmyrtle -
 * Thank you so much for the feedback.
 * Sincerely, Unredacthefacts (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple suggesti0ns
Hi again. First thank you for starting a discussion at Talk:Plantation. This may already be part of you thinking, but I would not start another one at another article. Otherwise, you might find yourself bombarded in multiple discussions. See what happens with this one and work from there. The other suggestion is to not mention the WMF and its goals. The relationship between the WMF and Wikipedia (especially the English Wikipedia as it existed well before the WMF) is quite complicated and fraught with mistrust. The WMF has no say on content decisions here. While I have only been an editor here for about three years, what I can say was surprising to me is the overall little support Wikipedia actually gets from the WMF, just from a technical "give us tools to do the volunteer work we do" perspective. Almost everything here is created by and maintained by Wikipedia volunteers, not the WMF. Not to mention the WMF has overstepped their bounds on at least a couple occasions since I have been here (much less the things before that, fair or unfair). I just do not want your argument to get drowned. S0091 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)