Jump to content

User talk:Omeritzics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Omeritzics, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Remsense ‥ 论 23:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disruptive editing, as I just mentioned a legitimate thing in the Talk page. I concern the bias in English Wikipedia, and I really want to make it un-biased. This is not a disruption, especially as I've just entered a comment in the Talk page. Your deletion prevents Wikipedia from showing the truth to the world. Omeritzics (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are disrupting a nonprofit charitable organization and wasting the time of volunteers. That's what you are actually doing. There are plenty of constructive things you could do here. See Category:Wikipedia_backlog for example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, as a volunteer myself. Who uses Al-Jazeera as a source?! Omeritzics (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that my messages were removed in an antisemitic cause. Omeritzics (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses Al-Jazeera as a source, that's who, along with many, many other sources. You are free to think you know the cause of anything you want. But why not put that sense of injustice to good use by helping to reduce the Category:Wikipedia_backlog. You might discover something you enjoy doing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Jazeera is a Qatar channel. It is an unreliable source, as it's known for its biases and for being anti-Israel, as Qatar is an Arabic Muslim country, which is still considered as Israel's enemy. Omeritzics (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page of a Wiki article should be used to comment and suggest changes, and this is exactly what I did. So there was no reason for the warning, and I object it. Omeritzics (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Reliability_of_Al_Jazeera. Its status is "generally reliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict, though most seem to agree there is a bias."
  • Your edits at the State of Palestine and Israel articles did not meet the requirements for edit requests by non-extendedconfirmed editors such as yourself. They were your personal opinions. That is a inappropriate use of the talk pages. That is why you received a warning. Wikipedia is built out of content that comes from reliable sources not the opinions of contributors. See WP:EDITXY for how to write an edit request with a better chance of being approved. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Al-Jazeera is "generally reliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict, though most seem to agree there is a bias."
    So WHY do you use it as an only source without mentioning it, even though most seem to agree there is a bias?!
    Wikipedia should be biased too? I don't think so! Omeritzics (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to answer that question because it is a bit non-specific. But if you are saying that potentially contentious statements of fact about the conflict shouldn't rely on a single source, I agree. The thing to do there is not to remove the source, but to look for other sources, do proper source sampling, see what they say and summarize all of those sources including inconsistencies, misalignments etc. Wikipedia is biased. It is unavoidable. In a perfect system, where people do proper source sampling and summarization, the content will reflect the many biases of a diverse set of sources. Editors are not smart enough to know what is actually objectively neutral according to Wikipedia's definition (WP:NPOV), they have biases and incomplete information. The best we can do is follow the rules and try to do proper source sampling and summarization and hope that neutrality emerges incrementally, or that there is a net trend towards neutrality in an article over time. But this relies on there being enough editors with diverse sampling strategies and biases to cover all the bases in article development. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if so, why not add according to Al-Jazeera?
But I have to say, that there are statements with no sources at all. Omeritzics (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a good question. The whole issue of when to use in-text attribution is a bit fuzzy and there is a lot of variation across articles depending on all sorts of things that are not obvious in many cases. See WP:INTEXT and WP:SOURCESDISAGREE for some guidelines. But this is one of the things where you can submit a straightforward edit request. If you see a statement that you think should have according to Al-Jazeera you can suggest that on the talk page and make you case (basing it on WP:EDITXY helps). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, why is the Talk page closed for suggestions and feedback? Is it too bad for the free encyclopedia (in the meaning of freedom) to be free?
According to the concept of Wikipedia, it should be an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but English Wikipedia in reality is different, as some of you the editors don't allow users even to give a feedback about an article (yeah, it could be also a concern about bias, but it's all to improve Wikipedia). Omeritzics (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic area has a very long history of disruptive editing, soapboxing, advocacy, ban evasion etc. WP:ARBECR was introduced in response to that history. The idea is, in part, to try to make sure editors have some experience before they start editing in the topic area and to make ban evasion a little bit more expensive. Talk pages are almost never locked down. Editors without the extended confirmed privilege (an imprecise proxy for experience) are restricted to only making simple edit requests to reduce the amount of disruption/timewasting and there is a bit of wiggle room for what meets the definition of an edit request. Once editors become extended confirmed they can provide constructive feedback on articles, participate in consensus forming discussions etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the protection is too much tight.
Preventing the editing of the page itself is OK, but why not letting autoconfirmed users write feedbacks and suggest improvements on the Talk page? Omeritzics (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't what to tell you. Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee disagree with your assessment and have imposed special rules to address specific types of disruption. This is the case for many contentious topic areas (see List of contentious topics). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask letting autoconfirmed users to manage the Talk page, but I did ask to let autoconfirmed users to engage in the talk page. Omeritzics (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one said you asked to allow autoconfirmed users to manage the Talk page, and the answer above already answers the engage question. They can engage. The engagement is limited to posting edit requests because that constraint is deemed necessary by the Arbitration Committee. You are free to disagree of course, but it doesn't change anything. The rule is there, and it is enforced. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omeritzics&oldid=1255119303"