Notyourashta

Welcome!

Hello, Notyourashta, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Free Britney movement does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KyleJoan^talk 02:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kyle, no worries. I went ahead and cited my source and changed the syntax to fit the verbiage used by both the source & Spears herself. Please let me know if you have any more suggestions! Notyourashta (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Free Britney movement. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Commentary was not added, rather I quoted verbatim from the article and from Spears's statements. She directly said that "she did not support" with a "hashtag on a public platform." Here, the hashtag clearly refers to the #FreeBritney movement as it is the name of the online movement. Therefore, Jamie Lynn Spears, by her own admission, did not publicly support the hashtag "FreeBritney." Notyourashta (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Lynn said that while she didn't support [Britney Spears] the way the public would like me to with a hashtag, she did so privately. You wrote she did not use the hashtag, therefore, she did not support the movement. These denote very different meanings, and your inclusion is a clear violation of the policy above. Please familiarize yourself with it. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The hashtag is by all accounts the movement as it is not only the title of the movement, it represents and encapsulates the movement. However, for clarity, I have restored only the source and the quote. Notyourashta (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, that's your personal analysis, which does not belong in any article. You personally believe that no hashtag = no support, correct? Imagine me personally believing no hashtag = opposition and writing that Jamie Lynn opposed the movement because she did not publicly use the hashtag. I hope you read and fully comprehend the policy and understand why that's unacceptable. KyleJoan^talk 03:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand the necessity of pertaining to policy, the difference is, I did not say she "opposed" the movement/hashtag as you have rephrase it here, I simply said she did not publicly support it (movement/hashtag). Not supporting publicly ≠ opposition, they are not the same sentences, and not supporting publicly is directly reflective of what she said. Now that I have reiterated the initial verbiage I used, for optimal understanding, I did use only the qquote, essentially including the same information but within the realm of her exact word choice. I would hardly say that the public movement being equivalent to and represented by the public hashtag is an "analysis," this Wikipedia page reflects that association plainly and evidently. That being said, with the contention between the hashtag of the movement and the movement; what's important is that the information is included, the public support (or lack thereof) of Britney's family and those involved in the conservatorship is of immense relevancy. Notyourashta (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

What matters is that the short quote adheres to the policy. I'm not interested in dissecting your response and continuing the discussion, but just know that neutral point of view could be an issue that comes up again in the future. KyleJoan^talk 04:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maronites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanna. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maronites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CNB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Your recent editing history at Maronites 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.
I'll open a discussion at Talk:Maronites sometime in the next 24 hours. You'll have the opportunity to discuss the matter, but considering multiple editors disagree with your edits, you may have to concede to a consensus you don't like. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)