User talk:Lambrusquiño
Hello, Lambrusquiño, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
The Wikipedia principle of 'Assumption of good faith'[edit]
Hello Lambrusquiño, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are a lot of rules and principles to learn around here (Wikipedia calls them "policies" and "guidelines") and no one expects you to be aware of them when you first start out. I'd like to introduce you to one important guideline that governs cooperation among editors: it's called the Assumption of good faith.
Wikipedia works through trying to achieve WP:CONSENSUS via collaboration among numerous editors of different backgrounds who have different skill sets and different experiences to bring to bear. Differences of opinion among editors are inevitable, and there are methods to resolve these differences, principally by WP:DISCUSSION on article Talk pages. There are also dispute resolution methods when consensus is not easily achieved. A cornerstone of collaboration here is to treat other editors WP:CIVILLY and with respect, even when other editors disagree with our point of view. A key part of that is the assumption of good faith—that is, we assume that other volunteer editors are here to improve the encyclopedia just like you are, even if what they consider an "improvement" is not the same as your view.
I noticed this comment of yours at Talk:Allahabad, where you labeled some wording preferred by other editors as "ridiculous" and also as "racist and hinduphobic". Please don't use this kind of language about other editors or their opinions, even without naming a particular editor, as it violates the principle of Assumption of good faith. Some other editors who are volunteers here just like you, whose only wish is to improve the article just like you, may think differently from you about how to achieve that goal. It's not a question of who is "right" and who is "wrong", rather, it's about talking it out with people who may disagree with you, and trying to establish a consensus through discussion.
I realize that you made that comment a month ago, and maybe since then you've already been exposed to the WP:AGF principle and taken it on board; if so, great! In any case, please take a moment to follow the AGF link and read more about it, as it's an important principle to learn early in your Wikipedia career, which I hope will be a long, and enjoyable one for you. If you ever have any questions about editing here, feel free to contact me at my Talk page, or you can pose a question at the WP:Tea house. Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Lambrusquiño, on my talk page, you wrote the following in response to my message above:
The message you left in my user page could be considered harrassment or wiki-hounding. There was no need for it. --Lambrusquiño (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- and to avoid fragmenting the discussion, I'll respond here.
- As you start out in your career at Wikipedia, you will inevitably bump up against one or another of the many rules; there's no shame in that, we all have, even experienced editors continue to learn from mistakes; I know I do. If you're lucky, another editor will leave you a friendly message here on your Talk page to let you know about it, so you can watch for it in the future. My only purpose in leaving the message above was to encourage your contributions here, and let you know about an important principle at the encyclopedia which you seemed to be unaware of.
- It's ironic that the message you left on my Talk page in response was another example of lack of good faith. It's easier to establish good habits while you're still new, so going forward, please do learn about this important principle of collaboration, and always assume good faith when dealing with other editors—they are generally not out to get you but are trying to help. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Casting aspersions at a Requested Move[edit]
Given the discussion above, I was surprised to find the following comment you just left at Talk:Allahabad#Requested move 20 September 2021 (diff ):
I would like to add that wikipedia should not be used for religious or political agenda which I suspect is the reason some users oppose moving the article.
That, plus the sentence immediately following sounded like a thinly veiled attack on my motivation in the move request discussion, or perhaps upon the motivation of other users. I see that I have utterly failed to persuade you about the assumption of good faith, and so I give up; I won't try anymore. Perhaps my approach has been the wrong one; in any case, I'll leave it to someone else to follow up with you on this, or perhaps you'll just figure it out on your own as you gain further experience here. I wish you the very best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Warning[edit]
Any further casting aspersions on motives of other editors and you will lose your editing privileges. —SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Misuse of minor edits checkbox[edit]
Hi Lambrusquiño! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Talk:Allahabad that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)