Chompaydm
Hello, Chompaydm, 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! Chongkian (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
June 2024
edit
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The point of view of that article is not neutral. Every line is inflammatory and biased. Evidence presented by Congress proves there was no attack. The evidence proves there was no riot. The thousands of hours of video released prove there was no ransacking of the offices. The article itself is violating the "neutral point of view policy" you are going to use to ban me. By banning me you are showing that you are knowingly and willingly complicit in the hypocrisy. 2600:1700:60E8:500:D532:E2B7:4F1A:A5D3 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- You have been lied to. The facts say otherwise. Note that advocacy of fringe POV is not allowed here and can lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not repeat what you have written above....EVER again. It is a fringe and false POV.
- Also, what you wrote is a personal attack and not an assumption of good faith. Editors here do the best they can to document what reliable sources say. If you disagree with the content of an article, do not attack editors, as your quibble is with the sources, not the editors. If you disagree with reliable sources, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to edit or express your POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The facts support my position, your sources say otherwise. My point of view is neither fringe nor false. Furthermore, without differing views truth cannot be found. Censorship is wrong. Labeling ideas is not only wrong, but dangerous. Not once did I attack anybody. What are you threatening if I don't conform to your demand of silence? Who are you to even make such a threat?
- "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales
- I'm pretty sure he meant "everything" with the word "all" not just what you believe to be true.
- To quote you: "That literally means ALL information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, We(sic) document the existence of it all."
- Again, my statements are facts supported by reliable sources and not "...opinion,...lies, conspiracy [theory], pseudoscientific nonsense, etc." 2600:1700:60E8:500:5195:E0A4:A853:57BA (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then provide those RS so we can examine them. Improve the article with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that was your whole raison d'être. Isn't your ability to reference, support, and then divulge fairly the accomplishment that imbues your power to make demands of others? 2600:1700:60E8:500:5195:E0A4:A853:57BA (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article has the reliable sources (RS) for you to read. Instead of pushing your POV that the article is wrong, you should read those sources to find out why it's written as it is. If you then find that editors have misused a source, mention the problem in a civil manner on the article's talk page. Then it will be fixed. We do this all the time. Your criticism carries no weight with us as long as you show so much evidence you have not read the sources. When the whole world is against you, you should consider that the problem might be with you, not the rest of the world. If the bubble of sources you use and all your friends agree with you on this matter, maybe you should use better sources and get new friends. We have a very well-developed system of vetting sources for reliability because not all sources are created equal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that was your whole raison d'être. Isn't your ability to reference, support, and then divulge fairly the accomplishment that imbues your power to make demands of others? 2600:1700:60E8:500:5195:E0A4:A853:57BA (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then provide those RS so we can examine them. Improve the article with them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IP address - you need to log in if you're going to post here, assuming you're the account holder. And as far as the account goes, either it's compromised, since this behavior is at odds with the previous history of the account, or you've decided to start using it for aggressive disinformation and POV. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
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 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.