User talk:RobertTWhitman
March 2024
[edit]
Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Randa Abdel-Fattah, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not defamatory. There are links to all the relevant sources in major newspapers - front page stories - and television channels. I am happy to forward them to you.
- The page as it stands is not encyclopaedia standard but a puff piece. RobertTWhitman (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- While there is certainly room for well-sourced discussion of her comments and those allegations, you'll need to keep it in due proportion and not turn the article into a hit piece. Take it up on the talkpage, propose multiple sources, and keep in mind WP:DUE. What you added is disproportionate in length, tone and emphasis. Read WP:BLP for more on how to approach biographies. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whoah, slow down, and don't copy copyrighted material into Wikipedia, anywhere. This is a developing issue, and should be edited with multiple concordant sources. As I said, there is room, but I'd start with a simple one or two sentence summary with more that The Australian as a source, not a lengthy dissertation written in the heat of the moment. There will be more about this in time. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for breaking news, or for shaming people. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just The Australian - it's The Sydney Morning Herald, Sky News, The Jerusalem Post, LA Times, everywhere. You can Google the fast-tracked doxxing laws. RobertTWhitman (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine, use more than one source, and keep it short and simple. More will come to light, and other editors can advise on due emphasis as it develops.. Please resist the urge to treat the article as a breaking news story. One sentence is usually best until it sorts itself out, then a more retrospective view can be taken. The politicians may be in a hurry, Wikipedia is not. Again, read the BLP policy. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will do. RobertTWhitman (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciated. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will do. RobertTWhitman (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine, use more than one source, and keep it short and simple. More will come to light, and other editors can advise on due emphasis as it develops.. Please resist the urge to treat the article as a breaking news story. One sentence is usually best until it sorts itself out, then a more retrospective view can be taken. The politicians may be in a hurry, Wikipedia is not. Again, read the BLP policy. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not just The Australian - it's The Sydney Morning Herald, Sky News, The Jerusalem Post, LA Times, everywhere. You can Google the fast-tracked doxxing laws. RobertTWhitman (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whoah, slow down, and don't copy copyrighted material into Wikipedia, anywhere. This is a developing issue, and should be edited with multiple concordant sources. As I said, there is room, but I'd start with a simple one or two sentence summary with more that The Australian as a source, not a lengthy dissertation written in the heat of the moment. There will be more about this in time. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for breaking news, or for shaming people. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)