You may want too look up WP:BRD. You can't demand that editors justify retention of material on the talk page. If you are bold and reverted, then you go to talk. Also WP:RS is relevant to the article you created on the Football Lads stuff which appears a promotional piece ----- Snowded TALK 23:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note - if you create material and it is reverted then it is your responsibility to justify its inclusion. None of the material was based on reliable sources so you will need to do a lot more research if you want to justify it ----- Snowded TALK 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, PlatinumHeron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
This may also help----- Snowded TALK 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Football Lads Alliance. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —S paranoia / cheap shit room 15:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Serial Number 54129: Does Snowded have one of these warnings?
- Yes. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop inserting material from primary sources, blogs and the like. You have policy on this. I suggest you make proposals on the talk page. You might also want to confirm if you have edited wikipedia before. I'm starting to agree with one other experienced editor who things you have. ----- Snowded TALK 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
By way of illustration this edit makes a misleading statement in the edit summary. None of the sources really say they ARE a street protest movement, they do say its a claim. Very different ----- Snowded TALK 12:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Snowded: Instead of removing information altogether, be considerate of people's time and retain the information, but with a citation needed template.
- I did cite primary sources, which Wikipedia says YOU CAN include, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS NOT ENTIRELY BASED ON THEM. I ADDED THE CITATION NEEDED TEMPLATE DUE TO THE NEED FOR STRONGER SOURCES.
- I have already "confirmed" I have not edited before. There's a little trick people can do called "reading" and "common sense" which allows us to find and work things out.
- This "editor" you keep mentioning said he thought I edited before because of my first edit. All I did was add a picture to my user page! I read about user pages beforehand! Is that a problem?
- You are making articles which I have tried to neutralise even more biased than they initially were! You are doing this so much that I have a rough idea of your political views...
- Whatever our political views (or those of media organisations) are, it is still important to keep the articles neutral.
- PlatinumHeron ( talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- We don't make articles 'neutral' we reflect the position in third party reliable sources. You can't use primary sources to validate a claim by an extremist (or for that matter any political group) without a third party. We do not retain controversial material I'm afraid without proper sourcing. You've been told this several times so please be 'considerate of people's time' and respect the way wikipedia works. If you think that is wrong, or I am wrong in my interpretation then take it to the reliable sources notice board. I note your statement that you have never edited before ----- Snowded TALK 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You may want too look up WP:BRD. You can't demand that editors justify retention of material on the talk page. If you are bold and reverted, then you go to talk. Also WP:RS is relevant to the article you created on the Football Lads stuff which appears a promotional piece ----- Snowded TALK 23:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Note - if you create material and it is reverted then it is your responsibility to justify its inclusion. None of the material was based on reliable sources so you will need to do a lot more research if you want to justify it ----- Snowded TALK 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, PlatinumHeron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
This may also help----- Snowded TALK 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
Football Lads Alliance. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —S paranoia / cheap shit room 15:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Serial Number 54129: Does Snowded have one of these warnings?
- Yes. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop inserting material from primary sources, blogs and the like. You have policy on this. I suggest you make proposals on the talk page. You might also want to confirm if you have edited wikipedia before. I'm starting to agree with one other experienced editor who things you have. ----- Snowded TALK 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
By way of illustration this edit makes a misleading statement in the edit summary. None of the sources really say they ARE a street protest movement, they do say its a claim. Very different ----- Snowded TALK 12:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Snowded: Instead of removing information altogether, be considerate of people's time and retain the information, but with a citation needed template.
- I did cite primary sources, which Wikipedia says YOU CAN include, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS NOT ENTIRELY BASED ON THEM. I ADDED THE CITATION NEEDED TEMPLATE DUE TO THE NEED FOR STRONGER SOURCES.
- I have already "confirmed" I have not edited before. There's a little trick people can do called "reading" and "common sense" which allows us to find and work things out.
- This "editor" you keep mentioning said he thought I edited before because of my first edit. All I did was add a picture to my user page! I read about user pages beforehand! Is that a problem?
- You are making articles which I have tried to neutralise even more biased than they initially were! You are doing this so much that I have a rough idea of your political views...
- Whatever our political views (or those of media organisations) are, it is still important to keep the articles neutral.
- PlatinumHeron ( talk) 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- We don't make articles 'neutral' we reflect the position in third party reliable sources. You can't use primary sources to validate a claim by an extremist (or for that matter any political group) without a third party. We do not retain controversial material I'm afraid without proper sourcing. You've been told this several times so please be 'considerate of people's time' and respect the way wikipedia works. If you think that is wrong, or I am wrong in my interpretation then take it to the reliable sources notice board. I note your statement that you have never edited before ----- Snowded TALK 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)