User talk:Opama420

Hi Opama420! 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:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

}} Doug Weller talk 09:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:Note this applies to ALL pages, not just articles. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

}}⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just saw this after asking on the talk page. I am new to Wikipedia editing so just wanted to ask, Are you saying I have to wait for them to close the rm discussion on the conflict title for me to open a new request on the war title? I don’t see how me participating in the open discussion contributes because mine is for a different title wording (indo-Pakistani war of 2025 instead of 2025 India-Pakistan conflict). If I support the current rm discussion, then I am supporting their version of the title, if I oppose the move, then I am supporting the status quo which I do not support. Opama420 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::You can participate in the currently existing RM discussion and propose a different outcome with your suggested new title. RM's are a discussion, not a vote - as a matter of practice, we typically bold things like Support/Oppose to make our positions clearer for the discussion closer who has to interpret the entirety of the discussion for the existence of a consensus, but you are not bound solely to the options that the RM originator chose -- if you don't like any of them, you can "write-in" your own. But we cannot have two separate discussions at one time, and we strongly discourage re-opening new RM's immediately after an existing one concludes (as it's unlikely that the previous consensus, or lack thereof, will have changed in that time), so while waiting until the existing one concludes is an option it's probably not helpful to you; so my advice is that if you want your argument for the page title to be heard, you make your case (concisely, please) in the existing RM.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)