Hello, Ratgomery!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratgomery. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

As you've already been notified, some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Hipal (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratgomery. I'm sorry we got off to a poor start interacting, and for the escalation. I'm offering to WP:REDACT any of my comments to help de-escalate the situation, and plan to do so regardless of your response.

I appreciate when you wrote, "but we can disengage if you feel that way." Do you have a suggestion on how we can do so?

I am happy to expand upon my comments about policy here for you, if you think it would be helpful. - Hipal (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal, per Wikipedia:REDACT "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context"

Please do not edit anything I've replied to as the context is important. Ratgomery (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's all you have to say. --Hipal (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal, I've thoroughly read all the policies you've accused me of violating and gathered my thoughts, and I've also read your user page where you seem genuinely open to constructive criticism so I hope you'll take this to heart. My candid impression of our encounter is that you're trying to discourage, or even scare, editor's who may disagree with you from joining that talk page and contributing. I am certain that you misused WP:OR while leaving me an ominous ban warning, not that I misinterpreted you. Asking a user to justify why something should be in an article, and then meeting their rationale with an WP:OR accusation, is not how what WP:OR is for, which is why WP:OR very clearly specifies it does not account to talk pages. Asking for an editor's rationale for something on a talk page, and then responding to them giving their rationale with an WP:OR accusation and an ominous ban warning is a serious misuse of WP:OR. I do not believe I'm misrepresenting your use of WP:OR here at all as this is exactly how you used it, as a response to me explaining my rationale on a talk page. This is also why I did not want you to redact your comments, as I strongly believe I'm not misrepresenting you here and that you did actually misuse this policy egregiously and I'd like it preserved in case it every becomes relevant in the future. Likewise, you also misused WP:POV. WP:POV is also a policy meant to guide the content within articles, not for pushing other editor's point of view off of talk pages. WP:POV does not mean editor's cannot share their rationale or points of view on talk pages, it is not a policy for you to lob out at editor's who disagree with your rationale on talk pages. The fact you lobbed WP:POV several times on the talk page not regarding any content I'm suggesting for the articles, but over your perception of my rationales given on the talk pages, strongly gives the impression you're objecting to editor's with other point's of view with you contributing, rather than objecting to how content within the article is presented which is what WP:POV is about.

Leaving 3 separate unwarranted ominous ban warnings, including one that was blatantly misrepresenting WP:OR, and accusing editor's of WP:POV for your interpretation of their opinions rather than directly regarding content within the article strongly gives the impression you are trying to push new editor's away from the talk page who you perceive have a different point of view with you an may disagree with you, and I hope this was not actually your intent.

Regarding disengaging: The talk page in its current state and regarding the topic we were discussing, I have nothing more to add so will be disengaging, but I will be participating on that page again in the future if new information arises or on future topics. I hope in the future our interactions are productive and will include less unwarranted ominous ban warnings trying to discourage me away from the page. Thank you. Ratgomery (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time you've spent with this response.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, rather deter them from getting involved where a very high level of competence in policy is required. BLP is very clear on adherence to policy.

I've heavily explained the OR situation. I don't think further elaboration is needed when editors apparently ignore the elaborations already there.

Likewise, you also misused WP:POV. WP:POV is also a policy meant to guide the content within articles, not for pushing other editor's point of view off of talk pages. I don't believe I'm doing that, and have made my concern clear, Editors appear to be relying on their personal opinions rather than following policies.

The fact you lobbed WP:POV ... Where?

WP:POV does not mean editor's cannot share their rationale or points of view on talk pages. No, but our behavioral policies and guidelines do apply. Personal opinions not derived from sources should not be used instead of or against the application of content policies, nor are such personal opinions an answer to policy concerns.

On the article talk page you wrote, I believe it's Due based on numerous reliable sources reporting on it... That's a basic POV-based argument, and I thank you for it. Unfortunately it's almost totally lost in all the side discussion.

I hope in the future our interactions are productive... As do I. Thank you for ending on such a positive note. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]