User talk:Lawrenson77

Lawrenson77, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lawrenson77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

• Biographies of persons assumed to be alive are held to especially high standards of verifiability -- all unsourced information may be removed, no matter how plausible.
• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not change others' comments.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to cite sources for claims

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Next Revolution, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And on a personal note, any programming on Fox News Channel is far-right and won't redress any claims on that end of the spectrum, no matter how demonstrably false they may be. The few "liberals" they bring in are either centrist sycophants, fringe strawmen, or accidents they won't invite back. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Steve Hilton. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 17:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, a right-wing populist, on a show on a far-right network, is not going to argue against comments by a far-right commentator. If there was actual outrage over the comments or the lack of opposition (and not just over all of those individuals being right-wing), then that could be noteworthy but that would need to be demonstrated by a source.

Reverse everything here. Imagine if the Owen Jones had an interview with Bernie Sanders in the Daily Mirror (instead of the New Statesman for whatever reason). Imagine that a new editor comes onto the site and starts adding material (citing no sources whatsoever) to the articles about Jones and the New Statemen decrying "the abominable way that Jones just let Sanders preach his delusional communism." It'd be unrealistic to expect a left-wing individual to criticize or otherwise downplay another left-wing individual in a left-wing paper; and barring some sources being presented that there was actual consternation regarding something Sanders (hypothetically) said, one would have to assume that the problem is the editor is upset with leftist politics in general.

Now, I certainly lean left, and I think that equating the far-right establishment with the left is dishonest (and would argue our policies agree), but that's basically the situation.

If you keep adding unsourced commentary, you can and will be blocked from editing. I highly recommend finding another topic you can edit more neutrally (at least for now), and perhaps even trying this tutorial to learn how to cite sources (among other things). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Lawrenson77! You created a thread called Treehouse at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rachel Johnson has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rachel Johnson was changed by Lawrenson77 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852221 on 2018-06-26T21:01:01+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rachel Johnson. Home Lander (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, take note of the following:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

clpo13_(talk) 21:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Hut 8.5 06:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)