MarSwe11

October 2022

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 23:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

So they can't handle criticism? That's very alarming to hear! I was led to believe that the purpose of Wikipedia was to stand by its core principles. But It seems I was mistaken.

So you are telling me that its not civil to ask for evidence when a person makes outrageous claims? Why do you have source references then?

I'm sorry, but this seems very nefarious to me. That's my honest opinion, I would suspect that you don't find that civil either because you have not defined what it means. Wikipedia has, and that's the rules I was following. MarSwe11 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I carried over mine and all other people's rude attitude from a different platform. I was not familiar to the rules and guidelines set by Wikipedia at that time. However, I have since then read the policies and guidelines. I think they make a lot of sense to eliminate a toxic environment that manifests itself on platforms like X/former Twitter, where you always have to be relentless towards the trolls and personal attacks.

I'm not uncivil there either, but I am aggressive in my rhetoric towards ludicrous and baseless claims/personal attacks against me. Furthermore, I always try to be as intelligent as possible, exposing and incriminating the trolls.

/Martin MarSwe11 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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 standard message is designed as an 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. Hipal (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hello, I'm Rsk6400. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Propaganda in Russia‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Glenn Diesen, you may be blocked from editing. Prolog (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)