Hello, C0smoNauticalMile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have the sources, I just do not know how to source. How exactly to I add a source? Like, the numbers in the brackets that send you to the source? I do not know that skill. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I listened to the YouTube videos Adam Lanza recorded of himself, and he mentioned how he would "free children from the suffering of life", while everyone else is claiming them as their property. This is crucial as a motive, which is him having the ideology of thinking he is saving them, rather than just murdering them. He has also showed evidence of being jealous of the students in room 10 of Sandy Hook, as his mother loved them and he thought she "loved them more than him". C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need references in reliable published sources, not you listening to YouTube. Your interpretation of a primary source isn't acceptable. You would need to find a published analysis that discusses what you assert, and you must find consensus on the article talkpage. Please read all the existing references concerning Lanza's motives. Those are the kind of references that Wikipedia accepts.
Acroterion
(talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- So, basically what you are saying is that over an hours worth of ranting confirmed to be Adam Lanza, that explicitly shows him telling his motive, is not acceptable? Please do not tell me people on Wikipedia take random misinformation from the New York Times as a reliable article. No wonder why school districts ban the use of Wikipedia, they cannot just write the truth. Some articles refuse to even give the names of shooters, even if they are mentioned clearly across the media! I do not mean to insult you or any of your work, but sometimes some articles could use natural evidence when provided. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do not know if that is the case, as I have only been here 4 months. However, it seems that the requirements to write an article are confusing. The "videos" I mentioned are actually audio recordings of Adam talking about all his problems with life, and why he admired such violence and acts, so it is not "unreliable" just for being posted to YouTube in general. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need references in reliable published sources, not you listening to YouTube. Your interpretation of a primary source isn't acceptable. You would need to find a published analysis that discusses what you assert, and you must find consensus on the article talkpage. Please read all the existing references concerning Lanza's motives. Those are the kind of references that Wikipedia accepts.
Acroterion
(talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that if reliable sources haven't taken notice of your claimed statements by Lanza, or consider them significant or diagnostic, Wikipedia can't either. Please read
WP:NOR and
WP:RS. These are fundamental policies, which is how we avoid turning the encyclopedia into opinionated mush. We go by what reliable journalistic and academic sources have published as analysis concerning Lanza's motivations, not by an editor's amateur interpretation. And we have a general policy of avoiding memorialization of mass murderers in articles as much as possible, especially when a shooter's motivation appears to have been to gain publicity. Diving into articles on mass slaughter is a poor way to learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively. Maybe you should consider editing in less disturbing areas. Your edit to Lanza's presumed account is disturbing and wholly inappropriate.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but it seems you are insulting me solely based on the fact that I am new to this platform. I simply do not understand why you underestimate beginners. I do not know how long you have edited on Wikipedia, but it seems you think higher of administrators than individuals with the chance to learn and improvise on articles. Also, I refuse to accept your request that I should stay towards a specific part, although I will if you prove to me it could be beneficial in a sense. I have interest in articles on Wikipedia regarding mass slaughter (not in the sense I obsess over it as a whole), but I helped build the article on the recent 2023 Prague shooting. I know you attempted to direct your insults less towards me specifically by adding "an editor" rather than "your", but it does not change the fact that you do not put any hope into new editors. I have read and revised many articles of the subject on Wikipedia using my older account, which was from years ago. I have since not used it, up until the creation of this account, initially for the sole purpose of creating articles on tornado outbreaks. I believe that account was taken down due to prolonged inactivity, however. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that if reliable sources haven't taken notice of your claimed statements by Lanza, or consider them significant or diagnostic, Wikipedia can't either. Please read
WP:NOR and
WP:RS. These are fundamental policies, which is how we avoid turning the encyclopedia into opinionated mush. We go by what reliable journalistic and academic sources have published as analysis concerning Lanza's motivations, not by an editor's amateur interpretation. And we have a general policy of avoiding memorialization of mass murderers in articles as much as possible, especially when a shooter's motivation appears to have been to gain publicity. Diving into articles on mass slaughter is a poor way to learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively. Maybe you should consider editing in less disturbing areas. Your edit to Lanza's presumed account is disturbing and wholly inappropriate.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- The policies I cited are fundamental principles that all editors must respect if they wish to participate in the project. There is no insult intended or implied in explaining why they are so important to the integrity of the encyclopedia, how they work (imperfectly), and how they are applied. We don't expect new editors to know everything, but nobody cuts any slack on violations of sourcing policy. I'd like for you to look around the discussion pages of various articles to see how sourcing and content are resolved. The talkpage archives of any of the articles you've edited will give you an idea of what's expected, and what doesn't measure up. You've chosen a deep end of the pool in which to learn to swim.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Uh-huh, said the previous administrator the last time I typed the truth for once on Wikipedia, and it was denied. I accept your "proposal" of reading the policies again, and/or viewing discussion pages. If your articles are "truthful and proper", then why do schools say otherwise and ban Wikipedia? Why is it that, even when vandalism is punished and prevented with protection of articles, not allowing edits from unauthorized individuals, Wikipedia still has the facade of being "untruthful" that one cannot just see though and know the truth? That it is factual? Tell me, I'd love to know. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- The policies I cited are fundamental principles that all editors must respect if they wish to participate in the project. There is no insult intended or implied in explaining why they are so important to the integrity of the encyclopedia, how they work (imperfectly), and how they are applied. We don't expect new editors to know everything, but nobody cuts any slack on violations of sourcing policy. I'd like for you to look around the discussion pages of various articles to see how sourcing and content are resolved. The talkpage archives of any of the articles you've edited will give you an idea of what's expected, and what doesn't measure up. You've chosen a deep end of the pool in which to learn to swim.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Lincoln Middle School (Meriden, Connecticut) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Lincoln Middle School (Meriden, Connecticut). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Just i yaya 07:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it will be ready in around 2 weeks or so. I also need to get information from the school administration in person, as well. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, C0smoNauticalMile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have the sources, I just do not know how to source. How exactly to I add a source? Like, the numbers in the brackets that send you to the source? I do not know that skill. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I listened to the YouTube videos Adam Lanza recorded of himself, and he mentioned how he would "free children from the suffering of life", while everyone else is claiming them as their property. This is crucial as a motive, which is him having the ideology of thinking he is saving them, rather than just murdering them. He has also showed evidence of being jealous of the students in room 10 of Sandy Hook, as his mother loved them and he thought she "loved them more than him". C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need references in reliable published sources, not you listening to YouTube. Your interpretation of a primary source isn't acceptable. You would need to find a published analysis that discusses what you assert, and you must find consensus on the article talkpage. Please read all the existing references concerning Lanza's motives. Those are the kind of references that Wikipedia accepts.
Acroterion
(talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- So, basically what you are saying is that over an hours worth of ranting confirmed to be Adam Lanza, that explicitly shows him telling his motive, is not acceptable? Please do not tell me people on Wikipedia take random misinformation from the New York Times as a reliable article. No wonder why school districts ban the use of Wikipedia, they cannot just write the truth. Some articles refuse to even give the names of shooters, even if they are mentioned clearly across the media! I do not mean to insult you or any of your work, but sometimes some articles could use natural evidence when provided. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do not know if that is the case, as I have only been here 4 months. However, it seems that the requirements to write an article are confusing. The "videos" I mentioned are actually audio recordings of Adam talking about all his problems with life, and why he admired such violence and acts, so it is not "unreliable" just for being posted to YouTube in general. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, you need references in reliable published sources, not you listening to YouTube. Your interpretation of a primary source isn't acceptable. You would need to find a published analysis that discusses what you assert, and you must find consensus on the article talkpage. Please read all the existing references concerning Lanza's motives. Those are the kind of references that Wikipedia accepts.
Acroterion
(talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that if reliable sources haven't taken notice of your claimed statements by Lanza, or consider them significant or diagnostic, Wikipedia can't either. Please read
WP:NOR and
WP:RS. These are fundamental policies, which is how we avoid turning the encyclopedia into opinionated mush. We go by what reliable journalistic and academic sources have published as analysis concerning Lanza's motivations, not by an editor's amateur interpretation. And we have a general policy of avoiding memorialization of mass murderers in articles as much as possible, especially when a shooter's motivation appears to have been to gain publicity. Diving into articles on mass slaughter is a poor way to learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively. Maybe you should consider editing in less disturbing areas. Your edit to Lanza's presumed account is disturbing and wholly inappropriate.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but it seems you are insulting me solely based on the fact that I am new to this platform. I simply do not understand why you underestimate beginners. I do not know how long you have edited on Wikipedia, but it seems you think higher of administrators than individuals with the chance to learn and improvise on articles. Also, I refuse to accept your request that I should stay towards a specific part, although I will if you prove to me it could be beneficial in a sense. I have interest in articles on Wikipedia regarding mass slaughter (not in the sense I obsess over it as a whole), but I helped build the article on the recent 2023 Prague shooting. I know you attempted to direct your insults less towards me specifically by adding "an editor" rather than "your", but it does not change the fact that you do not put any hope into new editors. I have read and revised many articles of the subject on Wikipedia using my older account, which was from years ago. I have since not used it, up until the creation of this account, initially for the sole purpose of creating articles on tornado outbreaks. I believe that account was taken down due to prolonged inactivity, however. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that if reliable sources haven't taken notice of your claimed statements by Lanza, or consider them significant or diagnostic, Wikipedia can't either. Please read
WP:NOR and
WP:RS. These are fundamental policies, which is how we avoid turning the encyclopedia into opinionated mush. We go by what reliable journalistic and academic sources have published as analysis concerning Lanza's motivations, not by an editor's amateur interpretation. And we have a general policy of avoiding memorialization of mass murderers in articles as much as possible, especially when a shooter's motivation appears to have been to gain publicity. Diving into articles on mass slaughter is a poor way to learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively. Maybe you should consider editing in less disturbing areas. Your edit to Lanza's presumed account is disturbing and wholly inappropriate.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- The policies I cited are fundamental principles that all editors must respect if they wish to participate in the project. There is no insult intended or implied in explaining why they are so important to the integrity of the encyclopedia, how they work (imperfectly), and how they are applied. We don't expect new editors to know everything, but nobody cuts any slack on violations of sourcing policy. I'd like for you to look around the discussion pages of various articles to see how sourcing and content are resolved. The talkpage archives of any of the articles you've edited will give you an idea of what's expected, and what doesn't measure up. You've chosen a deep end of the pool in which to learn to swim.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Uh-huh, said the previous administrator the last time I typed the truth for once on Wikipedia, and it was denied. I accept your "proposal" of reading the policies again, and/or viewing discussion pages. If your articles are "truthful and proper", then why do schools say otherwise and ban Wikipedia? Why is it that, even when vandalism is punished and prevented with protection of articles, not allowing edits from unauthorized individuals, Wikipedia still has the facade of being "untruthful" that one cannot just see though and know the truth? That it is factual? Tell me, I'd love to know. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- The policies I cited are fundamental principles that all editors must respect if they wish to participate in the project. There is no insult intended or implied in explaining why they are so important to the integrity of the encyclopedia, how they work (imperfectly), and how they are applied. We don't expect new editors to know everything, but nobody cuts any slack on violations of sourcing policy. I'd like for you to look around the discussion pages of various articles to see how sourcing and content are resolved. The talkpage archives of any of the articles you've edited will give you an idea of what's expected, and what doesn't measure up. You've chosen a deep end of the pool in which to learn to swim.
Acroterion
(talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Lincoln Middle School (Meriden, Connecticut) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Lincoln Middle School (Meriden, Connecticut). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Just i yaya 07:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it will be ready in around 2 weeks or so. I also need to get information from the school administration in person, as well. C0smoNauticalMile ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)