User talk:Prodigy 16

If you want to post to my talk page, please be civil and polite, I will erase any posts that are not.

April 2015

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Rand Paul. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Your analysis of a video does not trump the five strong sources that have already been presented. You are also the only editor who objects to the content. Please stop reverting this material. Please gain consensus on the talk page, start an RfC, or seek other methods of dispute resolution. - Mr X 11:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an analysis of a video, it is a simple fact displayed on a video, versus what others state, which is conjecture. If you do not know what fact is, you probably shouldn't be making edits. Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Rand Paul. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

You've made points on talk and they're wrong - what multiple RS sources say supercedes what any one editor claims about a video. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No claims need to be made, viewing the video, which gives his exact statement, with no paraphrasing or conjecture, shows FACT. As a point, if a bunch of people believed a comet flying over was going to take you to heaven, would you drink their kool-aid just because a bunch of them agreed on it? Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 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.

- Mr X 11:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring

It appears from your recent edits that you yet to read and understand this policy. Posting to an article's talk page does not mean that you are free to revert in the article's mainspace. Please read WP:BRD. Posting to the article's talk page is the means by which consensus is determined. Once you are reverted the next step is to determine consensus. Please ask questions if you do not understand this policy. Tiderolls 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rand Paul‎, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to ignore talk page consensus, multiple sources, dispute resolution channels and you are substituting your own original research for reliable sources. Please make your case on the talk page and quit blanking content. It's disruptive and violates WP:CONSENSUS. - Mr X 02:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect sources do not make something a fact. And I gave no "original research" as I provided nothing other than the actual statement made, which does not contain the wording being used, and surmising what he means based on incomplete information... last I checked, that is conjecture, whether 1 person does it, or 1,000.

Conjecture con·jec·ture kənˈjekCHər/ verb verb: conjecture; 3rd person present: conjectures; past tense: conjectured; past participle: conjectured; gerund or present participle: conjecturing

1. form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

Please tell me how posting his exact statement is "original research", but posting sources that take guesses at what he meant are supposed to be fact. Threaten me all you want, I am here for the truth, whether you like it or not. Prodigy 16 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't "post" anything, you removed content based on on your version of the truth.

WP:PRIMARY states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

At least three editors object to your removal of this material. You are the only one who supports removing it. You don't get to have your way simply because you claim to be "here for the truth". Please take the time to read our policies and ask questions. You can also ask for outside views by posting to WP:OR/N or WP:RS/N. What you can't do is persist in removing this content against established consensus because you think you're right. If you continue to remove this content against consensus, you may be topic banned or blocked from editing altogether.- Mr X 12:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]