User talk:PatrioticMiguel

November 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Badger, Minnesota, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Badger, Minnesota. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badger

The city has billboards at it's north and south entrances citing it as The Mallard capital, as well as it is on all of their city stationary and was featured on their weekly newspaper for almost a century. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide sourcing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. See WP:RS and WP:V. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a reliable source. The editors and readers do not know who you are and whether you are telling the truth. Wikipedia cannot take user's word for types of edits which are often joke edits or vandalism. They must have citations. Wikipedia guideline pages also point this out.

If it is a known fact, then there must be a source. Wikipedia provides citations for readers who may question content, especially negative content about living persons. "Known facts" are not reliable sources. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Wikipedia:Verifiability."

The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So I'll post a photo of the the billboard on the edge of town next to the population sign, or would you experts consider that faked as well? Most of Badger's history is written, not click bait online searchable. Much like it's two major fires of 1905 and 1908.

Badger continued

Ok. So I'll post a photo of the the billboard on the edge of town next to the population sign, or would you experts consider that faked as well? Most of Badger's history is written, not click bait online searchable. Much like it's two major fires of 1905 and 1908. PatrioticMiguel (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa

If it was so classified why doesn't the media ever mention it? Or do you think anonymous sources from 2017 are sufficient? Doug Weller talk 11:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html is supposedly heresay? And just because left controlled MSM isn't reporting something doesn't make it true. Unlike the Sheriff's Department memo that the Guardian claims is an official FBI statement claiming the Proud Boys are terrorists. It's a sad day for free speech and INTEGRITY.

Integrity would require you to read the actual source the Independent used. This is based on anonymous unconfirmed sources. Are you happy with that? If you actually read the Independent regularly you would know it's left of center. Can you find anyone with new defat ails about this, left or right? Doug Weller talk 19:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Weller, perhaps Newsweek? https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

That's just the same material with the same source. Please sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~

Ok Mr Weller. Find four sources that the FBI and DHS to counter, other than "Because Doug says so".

PatrioticMiguel, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PatrioticMiguel! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to recently deceased or living people

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 recently 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 any 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.

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 recently 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 any 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as those at Keith Ellison (disambiguation) and Ilhan Omar are likely to lead to a block or topic ban

Those were completely unacceptable, and since you immediately reverted them I'm guessing you know that. I've removed them from the history so that they can only be viewed by other Administrators. Read the two alerts above and avoid any such edits, whether or not you revert yourself. You should also read WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Wikipedia

Hi PatrioticMiguel, you are new here and are involved in controversial topics (see the discretionary sanctions notices above).

Some quick, important points:

indenting and signing

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

Also, at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.

discussing content on article talk pages

It is good that you have found article talk pages. We have guidelines for using talk pages (see WP:TPG) -- article talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources (see WP:RS) and the project policies and guidelines (see WP:PAG), not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings.

general

In general, please be aware that editing Wikipedia is a privilege freely offered to everyone, and this openness is very important to the editing community. However, when people will not engage with the policies and guidelines and other norms of the editing community, we do remove or restrict editing privileges.

Please have a read of User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to help people who come here all passionate about something get oriented to what we do, how we do it, and importantly, why we do things as we do. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to my talk page violated our BLP policy

I'm willing to ignore it, but not again. You've misrepresented what actually happened. I've responded on my talk page. I told you that you should read BLP. You've been alerted to the relevant sanctions. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]