User talk:Tristario

Hello, Tristario, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tristario! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 10:36, Tuesday, May 17, 2022 (UTC)

Hey bro, I need your help, El C protected the article Chambhar on my request but before protection, a user named Yash1110 reverted my edit and recovered the unsourced material and unreliable sources.

I request you to recover last version by me. Mahant Sonty (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, i give sourced material. just check it again, Yash1110 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahant Sonty Unfortunately if I went and reverted that I think that may count as canvassing. However the page is only semi-protected, so all you need to do is wait a few days before you'll be able to edit the article again. Besides that the usual process is discussing on the talk page in order to come to a consensus, and if that doesn't work, following the steps in dispute resolution. Yash1110 did add some sources for the unsourced material so you should check to see if those are reliable sources and if they support what is written (and they aren't WP:SYNTH)

@Yash1110 Many of the sources you added don't have page numbers, you should add page numbers when adding sources, otherwise it's difficult to check whether the source actually supports the material in the article. It's also better to put the sources after the specific claims they support rather than putting them all at the end of paragraph. Tristario (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.

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.

GizzyCatBella🍁 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no added support for your edits and you appear to be edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article. If you continue edit warring to force your version of the edit into the article without consensus then any editor can submit your name for edit warring. Both Slatersteven and myself are opposed to your edit. Your edit is reverted following Wikipedia policy for edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause Please read WP:CON. On the talk page discussion here there is broad support for the inclusion of at least some information about polling, and I've invited people to make changes to the edit if they aren't happy with it. I have repeatedly asked you what your objection is to the inclusion of information about polling, such as here and here, and you have not given any explanation as to what your objection is. You cannot just object to an edit, never explain why, and then use your objection as grounds for "no consensus". This is WP:STONEWALLING, and you should read that page too, especially "Opposing a proposal based only on asserting that it's not supported by consensus". Tristario (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note futher I am not trying to force "my version" of the edit. I have been continually actively inviting people to make changes as they see fit, it is simply a starting point, as was discussed on the talk page. You are also welcome to make any changes as you see appropriate. Tristario (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HISTRS is an essay. I do not believe there is a consensus among Wikipedians that historical topics require something more stringent than WP:RS; after all, every single topic is either historical or BLP, and BLP I believe does require something more stringent. T3h 1337 b0y 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's an essay, not a policy. But it gives a good idea for the best and most appropriate kinds of sources for historical topics. Usually (but not always), it's best practice to rely on scholarship in historical topics rather than work by journalists. The essay itself explains that what it is saying is best practice, rather than a requirement

The wikipedia military history manual of style WP:MILMOS#SOURCES, which is a guideline and therefore is supported by consensus, also make similar recommendations (though not requirements) Tristario (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sup boseman do you work at belper school or is it just cap that the cat dragged in Thanks, former student John Melbourney (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't work there, I check the recent changes on wikipedia for possible vandalism, which is how I found the article. I removed your addition because it wasn't sourced to a reliable source, but you're welcome to add information to the article if it is verifiable to a reliable source, and it follows wikipedia's other policies Tristario (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you..thanks for your insight.. (getting in a few last edits before a personal trip). Long story short, it is OK to edit an article in AFD as long as you do so 1) in good faith, 2) to address the concerns raised in the deletion nomination, and discussion, 3) leave the tag in place

In most of the AFD discussions this approach does not seem to be the path taken (I rattled this off this morning, thought you might be interested)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flibbertigibbets#AFD_-_A_Gold_Standard_AFD_test;_Essay_Start/Draft

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting thoughts, thank you Tristario (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define what you mean by contentious? We clearly seem to be operating under different definitions of the word. Ostalgia (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps we are. In the context of WP:BLP I take it roughly to mean something that is controversial in some manner, it could be that the inclusion is controversial, the information is controversial, or the topic is controversial. Reading the BLP policy page I think that interpretation is roughly correct Tristario (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it to be controversial in the sense that it is just factual information that is easily demonstrable (i.e. cannot be disputed) - an interpretation of it, either by a reader, an editor or a third person commenting on the subject in a secondary source could be, however, contentious, but that's a different matter. I also assumed the sources were valid because, although "self-published" (I'm not sure the term fits exactly, but I rolled with it), they are self-published by the group to which he belonged, thus I believe they fell under the category of self-published by the subject (there are others articles in other websites of the same organisation that include Shekhovtsov's own comments as well). I particularly mean this: "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. My interpretation of this is perhaps too broad? Needless to say, adding this is not a hill I'm going to die on, but I believe it's valuable background information given his line of work. Unlike most other academics who have covered the subject of Dugin's neo-Eurasianism, he possesses insider information on both the organisation, the ideology, and the dramatis personae (this last bit, though, is my interpretation). Ostalgia (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see why you might have that view. I think it's important to be careful when it comes to articles about living people in terms of respecting their privacy, making sure that the sourcing for anything potentially controversial is good, and that they are written conservatively. In this case, if it were covered by solid secondary sources it may add to his biography - but otherwise I don't think it should be included. I'm sure there are many academics that have been involved in various political movements when they were younger, but generally we'd need solid sourcing and good reason to be including that information Tristario (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tone on the talk page has gotten very uncivil. Could you please step in? Trade (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a comment there. I don't think this counts as WP:CANVASSING since I won't be trying to change the outcome of the discussion (but where the line is on this isn't completely clear to me) Tristario (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can see team "keep the names" are made up by 1 banned sock (Round and rounder) Freedom4U and two IP's. I'm not sure if the IP's be given too much weight if they are not willing to use their accounts when arguing. Don't remember what Wikipedias policy are regarding how much IP's should count in consensus Trade (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why IPs wouldn't count in consensus, and consensus also isn't a vote, it's the strength of the arguments that should count. Perhaps you didn't notice but I did leave a comment after looking at Freedom4U's sources saying that I thought we didn't have much justification for excluding their names given they've been so widely published (that being said - I think arguments on both sides have merits). I also didn't mention this argument, but since the founders aren't only known for founding that website, I think that excluding their names may mean that there is a loss of context if we exclude their names (But like I said in that comment, I think we should only use their names where relevant/necessary) Tristario (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to be an unwritten rule in DR on other projects. Hence i was asking how it works here

I still never understood where the real names are relevant or why it would be Trade (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions#Editor-specific_factors contains some advice on considering IPs when closing discussions Tristario (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tristario. I am affiliated with Zhang Lei (investor). I saw that you made some edits to the early life section and was hoping you might take an interest in reviewing the edits to that section I proposed here (see bullet 3). The issue is, some of the events in his early life are out-of-order. Also, it seems to be dancing around mentioning Swensen was his mentor, something heavily emphasized in good-quality sources. In compliance with WP:COI, it's best practice for me to seek out an impartial editor to consider the changes. Let me know if you have a few minutes to take a look. Best regards. Phil2600 (talk) Phil2600 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look Tristario (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and note your (WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:OR) edit on page Robin Hunter-Clarke. However, there now no sources providing evidence that this man is a solicitor. Would you support removal of the word "solicitor" from the page on the grounds that Wiki does not make assertions without evidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hunter-Clarke RichiSups (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not supported by any of the sources in the article you can remove it I suppose. There's a more compelling need to remove poorly sourced material from WP:BLPs if the material is contentious Tristario (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tristario. Thanks for merging the "Allegations of exploitation" section of the Garrett Camp page into the "Wealth" section in response to my BLPN post. I think that is much more neutral. I wanted to get your feedback on the other points I raised, such as this sentence:

"Karim Bayumi, a Los Angeles Uber driver and labor organizer, said "this guy is buying lavish houses with our money, our hard-earned money that they are unjustly taking from us."

I felt MOS:QUOTE discourages these kinds of editorialized quotes that are "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". I wasn't sure if you disagreed or just didn't address that particular point. John Pinette (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just fixing what I thought was the most obvious issue, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with anything else you wrote. I'm not a big fan of that part since it's more about protesting Uber's practices and wealth inequality than about Camp personally. Maybe I'll have at try at rewriting it at some point Tristario (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tristario. My third and final point at BLPN was that Garrett Camp was "never involved in running [Uber]". [https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/01/garrett-camp-on-his-startup-studio-its-new-200m-fund-and-what-he-makes-of-super-pumped/] The media blames the CEO for these controversies and explains Camp opposed Uber's controversial business practices.[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/how-much-is-an-idea-worth-in-ubers-case-3-7-billion/articleshow/69261818.cms]

::::I think it’s misleading to explain Mr. Camp was criticized for Uber's business practices, without explaining Mr. Camp did not make any of the criticized decisions and in fact openly opposed them. Thanks for taking the time to take a look. ~~~~   John Pinette (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that if I used other sources to essentially rebut that criticism it would be original research. However, actually I now think the guidance in WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:GUILT mean this material should be excluded outright. Tristario (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that. If you get a chance, I've also proposed a draft overhaul of the rest of the page at User:John Pinette/draftGarrettCamp (see here). None of that is BLP related, though. The proposed draft would reduce promotionalism like awards/rankings and replace it with more biographical content. John Pinette (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]