Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Yasmine Taeb, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –
Tera
tix
₵
23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The updates are properly cited VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the main problem (although it is still a problem; the YouTube video is not an acceptable source, see the perennial sources entry). The main problem is your liberal use of primary sources to reach a conclusion not supported by any of the sources ( WP:SYNTH), such as the use of board minutes (it's not even clear which ones you're citing) to claim Taeb is not engaged with the board. Additionally, the conclusions that are cited are given undue weight; for example you have not cited any secondary sources to show that the BDS issue deserves its own section. Finally, all your sources are bare URLs; these are susceptible to linkrot and should be avoided. – Tera tix ₵ 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –
Tera
tix
₵
13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The link provided is directly from the democratic socialists of america’s Website. VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 03:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. So that is not a secondary source, nor an independent one, nor a reliable one. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have looked at all the edits to the article and have reverted to an earlier version. Your edits did not improve the writing, the layout, and the tone of the article. In addition, you added sometimes strange content, sometimes inappropriate content, verified by either unreliable sources, websites, or primary sources. None of this will do. And on top of it all, you are clearly trying to place the person in a negative light. I am giving you the opportunity to a. acquaint yourself with our policies; b. look at more Wikipedia articles (look for Good Articles and Featured Articles) that will indicate to you what good, neutral articles are; c. learn to edit neutrally. If you continue as you did before, you will be blocked for partisan editing of BLPs with unreliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Yasmine Taeb. Your editing of a political BLP using piss-poor sources is, by now, just vandalism.
Drmies (
talk)
04:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The source literally is headlined “NEW RESIDENT OF FALLS CHURCH CITY” VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. And what about this, https://propertysearch.arlingtonva.us/Home/Sales?lrsn=28376 ? Is that a secondary source? And what is this, https://bluevirginia.us/2019/01/virginia-4q18-fundraising-numbers-start-coming-in, but a blog? And why do you use this to point to some person named Smith? What's the motive? And what kind of reference is this, https://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty/bills ? And why are you resorting to a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSXQ-Ogy3Y) to make a point about the person whose intent seems to be to blackball her? If I find that you added this while I was typing this up, I will revert and report you. Drmies ( talk) 04:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- They are deleted. I took them out. Why did you revert the updated citations that clearly comply with the requirements
VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (
talk)
04:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- No you didn't. And the purpose of our edits is still quite clear. Why, pray tell, are you pointing out that (allegedly) someone has a donor who is married to a Goldman Sachs person? Don't you think that's an awful lot like Trump dumping on McCabe cause his wife ran as a Democrat? I do. Drmies ( talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
That is actual video from an ACTUAL debate that from the democratic primary where she was running VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I pointed you to WP:RS. I reminded you that we use secondary sources here. You are either too obstinate to play by the rules or too ignorant of what an encyclopedia is. And yet you keep on keeping on. Hold on--let me drop an edit warring template here too. Drmies ( talk) 04:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies ( talk) 04:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You keep reverting an edit that is a literal headline from the news article. You are the one who is clearly trying to bias the article VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Bias" is not a verb. I did not revert that one single edit; I reverted all the other ones. Drmies ( talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Yasmine Taeb, it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –
Tera
tix
₵
23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The updates are properly cited VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's not the main problem (although it is still a problem; the YouTube video is not an acceptable source, see the perennial sources entry). The main problem is your liberal use of primary sources to reach a conclusion not supported by any of the sources ( WP:SYNTH), such as the use of board minutes (it's not even clear which ones you're citing) to claim Taeb is not engaged with the board. Additionally, the conclusions that are cited are given undue weight; for example you have not cited any secondary sources to show that the BDS issue deserves its own section. Finally, all your sources are bare URLs; these are susceptible to linkrot and should be avoided. – Tera tix ₵ 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –
Tera
tix
₵
13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The link provided is directly from the democratic socialists of america’s Website. VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 03:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. So that is not a secondary source, nor an independent one, nor a reliable one. Drmies ( talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have looked at all the edits to the article and have reverted to an earlier version. Your edits did not improve the writing, the layout, and the tone of the article. In addition, you added sometimes strange content, sometimes inappropriate content, verified by either unreliable sources, websites, or primary sources. None of this will do. And on top of it all, you are clearly trying to place the person in a negative light. I am giving you the opportunity to a. acquaint yourself with our policies; b. look at more Wikipedia articles (look for Good Articles and Featured Articles) that will indicate to you what good, neutral articles are; c. learn to edit neutrally. If you continue as you did before, you will be blocked for partisan editing of BLPs with unreliable sources. Drmies ( talk) 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Yasmine Taeb. Your editing of a political BLP using piss-poor sources is, by now, just vandalism.
Drmies (
talk)
04:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The source literally is headlined “NEW RESIDENT OF FALLS CHURCH CITY” VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure. And what about this, https://propertysearch.arlingtonva.us/Home/Sales?lrsn=28376 ? Is that a secondary source? And what is this, https://bluevirginia.us/2019/01/virginia-4q18-fundraising-numbers-start-coming-in, but a blog? And why do you use this to point to some person named Smith? What's the motive? And what kind of reference is this, https://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty/bills ? And why are you resorting to a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSXQ-Ogy3Y) to make a point about the person whose intent seems to be to blackball her? If I find that you added this while I was typing this up, I will revert and report you. Drmies ( talk) 04:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- They are deleted. I took them out. Why did you revert the updated citations that clearly comply with the requirements
VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (
talk)
04:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- No you didn't. And the purpose of our edits is still quite clear. Why, pray tell, are you pointing out that (allegedly) someone has a donor who is married to a Goldman Sachs person? Don't you think that's an awful lot like Trump dumping on McCabe cause his wife ran as a Democrat? I do. Drmies ( talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
That is actual video from an ACTUAL debate that from the democratic primary where she was running VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I pointed you to WP:RS. I reminded you that we use secondary sources here. You are either too obstinate to play by the rules or too ignorant of what an encyclopedia is. And yet you keep on keeping on. Hold on--let me drop an edit warring template here too. Drmies ( talk) 04:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies ( talk) 04:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You keep reverting an edit that is a literal headline from the news article. You are the one who is clearly trying to bias the article VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck ( talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Bias" is not a verb. I did not revert that one single edit; I reverted all the other ones. Drmies ( talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.