Yellowpelican
Welcome!
editHi Yellowpelican! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
November 2022
edit
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- There is no debate in reliable sources concerning the false nature of Trump's claims. There is broad consensus for making this plain throughout Wikipedia. Please stop using Fetterman's talkpage as a soapbox for your personal assessment. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I was actually trying to improve the article. I really don't care if Trump's claims were true or false since I don't live in the US or follow politics. I just know an unfalsifiable claim when I see one and don't see why this article on Fetterman needs to lose its credibility by pretending it's falsifiable. Other Wikipedia articles may also make this error, but it doesn't mean this one should. Yellowpelican (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't concerned with your interpretation of what is falsifiable or not, we go by reliable sources, which universally describe the claims as false. So that's what Wikipedia says. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like you aren't interested in a discussion and aren't interested in feedback. Enjoy the control you are exerting over this article. Yellowpelican (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, I’m not interested in debating encyclopedia policy with you. The policies require us all to stick to what reliable sources say. Acroterion (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like you aren't interested in a discussion and aren't interested in feedback. Enjoy the control you are exerting over this article. Yellowpelican (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't concerned with your interpretation of what is falsifiable or not, we go by reliable sources, which universally describe the claims as false. So that's what Wikipedia says. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I was actually trying to improve the article. I really don't care if Trump's claims were true or false since I don't live in the US or follow politics. I just know an unfalsifiable claim when I see one and don't see why this article on Fetterman needs to lose its credibility by pretending it's falsifiable. Other Wikipedia articles may also make this error, but it doesn't mean this one should. Yellowpelican (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please refer to Acroterion's message and stop your reverting on John Fetterman. Thanks Andre🚐 21:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- What would be the productive and respectful way to have a conversation about what is a falsifiable claim and what is a non-falsifiable claim)? False (proven to be false) vs unsubstantiated (no evidence of its truth). I see these details as essential for Wikipedia. I hear talk in the political centre of their concerns about bias in Wikipedia. I'd love to be able to help as a politically neutral person, as far as US politics go. I love Wikipedia, donate money every month, but I'm concerned about Wikipedia's reputation. Yellowpelican (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
DS notice
edit
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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.