User talk:Editngwiki

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Editngwiki!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

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, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 😋 Editngwiki (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to jump the gun[edit]

The discussion about Zech's accusations at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley_&_Arryn Zech has not yet concluded (I hope it does as well, but no admin has put a closing statement there as of yet, and an inline note says it will be archived on June 30th), so you are jumping the gun on the removal. That is why I reversed your edit. Please do not reverse my edit. Thanks. Also, considering you are an SPA (as noted in the above mentioned discussion), I have to question your motives with your edit, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the discussion is not officially closed. But in case of doubt, claims should not be included. That that reference is still there when there are other resources is a way that I consider unethical to include the allegations without the discussion having been closed. Editngwiki (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the reason and it only says it's a little better. I think the situation deserves a stronger argument. The point against its inclusion is much stronger since mentioning dailydot's article implies including the claims by way of references, leading readers to read those claims. By including them, the editor is telling readers that that's a solid and credible source when that is precisely what has been discussed on the noticeboard, a discussion that is pending closure. As I said before, this somewhat arbitrary reluctance to include it is what seems suspicious to me (not to mention the tension between you and another editor, which makes me think that there is some bias in favor of Zech), especially when clearly there is another alternative resource to refer to her sexuality, a resource that you yourself considered good in that same article in a previous edition.

Either way, let's keep discussing this on the talk page or noticeboard where others can contribute. We clearly disagree on this and would like to see what perspective others have. Editngwiki (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wouldn't disagree with you that there is tension in this discussion, and feel there are those who favor and oppose Zech, which is understandable. I will say briefly that this would rather discuss this on the Noticeboard, while adding there has already been sufficient discussion on there, and am hopeful the discussion can be resolved soon, so this can put behind everyone, with a closure by an admin or a non-involved user. Otherwise, I made more of a comment on the Noticeboard. I recommend you go there to air your views rather than talking about it here. Historyday01 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]