User talk:Loup & Wolfuss
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Loup & Wolfuss! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, one of the aspects that attracted me to editing Wikipedia were the strong rules about
conflict of interest. Especially when editing on a topic like the politics of Venezuela, I know many users have a tendency to be very involved themselves and passionate due to their own political views, so my aim was to try to avoid that bias by having several secondary sources mentioned in the summary. Loup & Wolfuss (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @NoonIcarus: Thank you for your message, but could you please be a bit more specific? What original research are you referring to? Maybe you confused me with another user, none of my recent edits contain any original work, and I have contributed to wiki articles for over two years, including starting articles from scratch myself, after community approval, so I'm fully aware of the need to source any statement. I realise that you have been here longer than I have been however, which I naturally respect. Are you referring to the changes I made to the Popular Will page? You removed a source from that page, but I did not include that source in the first place, I merely moved it into the summary which did not respect the rule of proportionality since it only included the self-ascribed position of the party in question. Loup & Wolfuss (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response and thank you for your explanation. Yes, my message mainly wanted to convery concern about the reliability of the source, which I think there's not an specific template for. I believe that a tertiary source should be used to correctly represent the content in question. I wasn't aware that you only moved the reference, so I don't think there's much to express in that case. Please let me know if I can help in any way; best regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, no problems. I think our views differ slightly on the nature of the source in question which I think is reliable when contrasted with the rest of the sources, showing the diversity of views, but that is a small nuance. --Loup & Wolfuss (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response and thank you for your explanation. Yes, my message mainly wanted to convery concern about the reliability of the source, which I think there's not an specific template for. I believe that a tertiary source should be used to correctly represent the content in question. I wasn't aware that you only moved the reference, so I don't think there's much to express in that case. Please let me know if I can help in any way; best regards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)