User talk:Kalem014

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.

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firefangledfeathers, I am genuinely perplexed by this response, and would appreciate any insight. The template message provided above seems a bit off topic given the edit under discussion was strictly biographical, and not a discussion of any pseudo- or fringe science itself.

Would you kindly let me know specifically which point in the revised biographical lead would you consider contentious? i.e., Which of the following facts are you contending with regard to the biography of RFK Jr.?

1. Full name Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954)

2. Was/is an American environmental lawyer

3. An activist

4. An author

5. A member of the Kennedy political family

6. A 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

7. Advocates for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech.

8. Well-known as an anti-vaccine activist

9. Criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories

Perhaps rather than edit-warring and stonewalling, we can reach a true consensus up to WP guidelines.

I look forward to your response, thank you! Kalem014 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kalem014. The Contentious Topics notices are basically saying "these topic areas are sensitive, so administrative action comes more swiftly and heavily; please be on your best behavior". As they say in the notice, they are not a sign that you've done anything wrong. I do think the changes you made worsen the article, and I've explained why at the article talk page. Let's keep that discussion there, but I'll briefly say that my issues were not about contention over specific facts, but over the manner and order of presentation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie! Based on my understanding of Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, we are compelled by policy to remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material "immediately". I also understand that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the contentious material, thus the above edit warning appears to be misplaced. I would suggest reflecting on your own recent edits on the topic in question from a neutral and self-critical perspective to ensure we comply with Wikipedia:CONPOL.

Despite our best efforts and lengthy discussion here Talk:Max Lugavere#"Known for Fringe Dietary Claims" and discussion topics preceding on the same page, no reliable sources (existing or otherwise) have been found that we can attribute to the specific statement that Lugavere is primarily "known for fringe dietary claims". The arguments in favor of the content have all been Wikipedia:SYNTH based.

My request for one or more sources using the word "fringe" or analogous term strictly with regard to his "dietary claims" is entirely reasonable and necessary.

I suggest we continue the discussion on the Talk page, and take the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if need be. Thanks! -- Kalem014 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unsourced content, as you were made aware on the talk page. Many folks have been tripped up by this before, thinking that WP:CRYBLP arguments mean that they cannot be blocked for edit warring - right up until they do in fact get blocked. You don't want to become one of them. Get consensus for your removals first. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, let us continue the discussion where it belongs on the aforementioned talk page. Kalem014 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]