User talk:ATForContributorGS
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
- 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.
| This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please note that per the terms of the general sanction, only extended-confirmed editors may edit articles or portions of articles relating to the Russo-Ukrainan War. Additionally, even if you were not subject to those sanctions, your edits consisted largely of removing sourced content (perhaps you were unaware that we have an existing consensus for inclusion for Oryx as a source) without discussion, on a designated contentious topic under active arbitration committee sanctions, in manner that does not appear to be constructive. That wouldn't be acceptable even for an extended-confirmed user, so please refrain from doing that in the future. Thanks for your attention. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I will keep that in mind, thank you.
- My issue was not with Oryx used as a source, I never contested it. I had an issue with interpretation and language.
- just because something is verifiably captured does not mean you are now an „operator“ of that vehicle.
- using language like „the Ukrainians have lost“ instead of „Ukraine has lost“ or „the armed forces of Ukraine have lost“ didn’t fit the general tone of the article.
- as per my understanding, „operators“ sections don’t include equipment losses, we would have to edit all other countries as well in order to be consistent.
- But I do understand the limitations of editing such articles and will adhere to the guidelines in the future. Thanks. ATForContributorGS (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Nomination of ReadPartner for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReadPartner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.