Hi Altonydean! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you expect me to calm down when all they do is out-right shut down reasonable opinions just because of their partisan bias towards a specific candidate and his campaign? It is blatantly obvious that it is heavily edited by editors with a partisan political agenda and it should not continue. If Wikipedia is the shining example of how neutral and unbiased information is represented, why are we allowing these types of people to further edit this page with total disregard for non-partisan content? Altonydean (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIV as your accusations are way out of line. As for the statement in your deleted post : "There is no mention of the assassination attempt on Trump, which happened due to prejudiced and polarised attitudes towards the former president from uninformed and misleading statements by people who were not aware of the consequences", there are two problems with this. First, it is already in the article in three locations, in multiple additional articles, and even has its own article devoted to the subject. Secondly, no one knows the shooter's motivations at this point and we do not include speculation. There is a third point I won't mention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, cut the bare-faced dodging and face the reality of your wrongdoing. Merely “mentioning” it doesn’t convey the significance of that event. It should be written plain simple in a new section. I don’t what to edit that page due to the fact that some editors might be more than offended by common sense. The article, which is literally about Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, shouldn’t be written in a way that is plainly against him and which is mainly edited by people who might have clear sympathies towards the Democratic Party narrative. This is not about whether Trump’s election campaign is being treated unfair or anything (although it is) and even if you don’t like him, you shouldn’t edit a encyclopaedia article in your own perspective. Editing a page about a person who is already being made a controversial figure, this issue should be addressed with a strong focus on neutrality and non-partisan sources. This does not remotely reflect on any of my previous statements. You’re just repeating lines basically. Multiple people at that page clearly said that it is quote “ludicrously biased”, “outright media bias”, “unreliable”. This is the same old example of defending the indefensible until it either goes away or suppressed. Altonydean (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I respond I'd just be goading you into yet more incivility. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The template doesn't say it outright, but I will. Accusing editors of "defending the indefensible" and failing to understand what you're saying "out of [their] own ignorance" is not acceptable. American politics has always been a hot-button topic on Wikipedia, which makes following our behavior norms all the more important in that topic area. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altonydean Would you like me to help you in any way (though I am a student and find it difficult to be active on a regular basis)? By the way, how did you come across Tim's name? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]