User talk:Adenyoyo

Welcome!

Hi Adenyoyo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries

Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, as you did at First Matabele War, you may be blocked from editing.

Here [1] you stated that you Fixed several typos when in fact you substantively altered the POV of the text. This kind of dishonest behavior is disruptive because it undermines trust. See also this edit [2] where you claim to have Added content but also removed well-sourced content, replacing it with unsourced content. Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am new to wikipedia editing. In the first edit on the Matabele war, i made the article sound as neutral as possible. It does not make sense to use the term " to save face ", when putting your vassal to heel upon their revolt is a clear form of retaliation.

In my edit on book censorship, i clearly mentioned why the marshall definition cannot be used as a reliable source when i edited it. You might have not seen it, in which case, i will repeat the reason here.

" Removed the Mar shall definition which was wrongly used as the "definition of book censorship" since the page used the definitions as a guide to read the page, not as a definition to be used and cited by other sources. By ban, they meant school ban, not a book "censorship", since students are free to get the books through various other means. Removed politically charged definitions of book censorship that left the definitions intentionally vague so as to include the recent removal of sexuali..."

I cannot find the full reason, as wherever i look, it gets cut off here.

I wish to have the guidance of a senior wikipedia editor who isn't ideologically driven so that i can make better edits in the future. I also urge you to look at my edit on misogynist terrorism, where my edit was removed with the pretext, "seek therapy", which is clearly something a neutral wikipedia editor would not do.

Neutrality is extremely important to a digital online encyclopedia. It must be respected. Adenyoyo (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misogynist terrorism. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

After my edit was reverted, i made a request in the talk page, asking the user, Jno skinner, why he had reverted my edits, and to tell me the reasons for doing so in the talk page. Instead of listing his disagreements with the edit, however, The user, Jno skinner, decided to mock and deride me, the editor, by reverting my edits with the tag "seek therapy", providing no other explanation.

Since i am new to wikipedia editing, i have tried my best to stick within the rules of editing, and bring a neutral perspective as much as possible.

The article mentioned above has several neutrality issues, as even mentioned before in the site's talk page, with several misuses of the term "incel" , and only feminist sources used as material for a global, neutral encyclopedia.

I wish to connect with a senior wikipedia editor who is neutral in their views so that I can get a clear and proper understanding on how to make further edits the next time I do so. Adenyoyo (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were disputed by several editors, not just one person who was rude to you. See WP:1AM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you think the consensus is local[edit source]

In a "one-against-many" dispute, it is a somewhat common occurrence that the editors who are working on a page come to a good-faith consensus that the larger community would not agree with. If you really think that this is the case, you can post a request for comment (RfC) and invite outside editors to comment. Be aware that an RfC settles the question of what the consensus is. You might not like the result if you post an RfC that settles the dispute against you. Posting an RfC that is certain to go against you doesn't just waste everybody's time; it makes it far less likely that you will ever get your way. So, how do you know whether an RfC has a good chance of going your way? In general, whichever side has the most reliable sources and follows those sources the closest prevails.

How do i get this done? Also, can you connect me to other wiki editors, it would be really useful Adenyoyo (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
50	Adelbert von Chamisso (talk)	Add sources
24	History of local government in Scotland (talk)	Add sources
8	Trades Union Certification Officer (talk)	Add sources
107	Ingressive sound (talk)	Add sources
91	Toughbook (talk)	Add sources
40	Malta–United Kingdom relations (talk)	Add sources
110	Spain–United Kingdom relations (talk)	Cleanup
196	Premiership of Boris Johnson (talk)	Cleanup
3,633	Brexit (talk)	Cleanup
25,683	Rishi Sunak (talk)	Expand
145	Palestine–United Kingdom relations (talk)	Expand
2,945	Grant Shapps (talk)	Expand
515	COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
71	James Davies (politician) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
225	Semi-parliamentary system (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
4	Shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (talk)	Merge
204	Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England (talk)	Merge
210	Non-metropolitan county (talk)	Merge
1,210	Nadhim Zahawi (talk)	Wikify
1,377	2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (talk)	Wikify
60	Water supply and sanitation in the United Kingdom (talk)	Wikify
2	Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies (talk)	Orphan
3	Learning and skills in England (talk)	Orphan
3	Champagne Palmer & Co (talk)	Orphan
9	Administration Committee (talk)	Stub
57	Secretary of State for International Trade (talk)	Stub
25	Competition Appeal Tribunal (talk)	Stub
20	Claim of Right 1989 (talk)	Stub
19	North Sea Transition Authority (talk)	Stub
8	Welsh Grand Committee (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]