User talk:TChrisMadrid

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TChrisMadrid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TheDude2006 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of films featuring time loops, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hi TChrisMadrid! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 2021 United States Capitol attack that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2021 United States Capitol attack, 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. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was clarifying direct, unproven allegations with more accurate ambiguous statements as the wording in the article itself did not have any proof to the previous wording which had very direct and specific unproven wording. The previous wording were citations from opinion of the events, and were not stating facts. I was clearing up the statements which were only opinion from the cited articles themselves. The "mostly peaceful" addition was a statistical fact as only 1% of protestors in Washington DC during the attack participated in the actual attack. The"false" claim is purely opinion, and should be changed to the ambiguous term unproven as this is a more accurate description. Thank you. TChrisMadrid (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is your commentary, not verified fact. As for "unproven"--no, the claim was false and proven to be false. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, 2000/120,000 =1.7%... That's a fact, not commentary. It's math, not up for debate. TChrisMadrid (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 2021 United States Capitol attack, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mostly peaceful" is not backed up by any WP:RS. Your edit summary appears to be some original research and I have no idea where you came up with those numbers. Use the article talk page for any changes you want to see made. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cited two sources, based on reliable sources, NPR being one of them, based solely on numbers. The percentages I stated are accurate, and that statement "mostly peaceful" is used with similar percentages on the Violence and controversies cutting the George Floyd protests page on Wikipedia, which had already been approved. I did no "original research" other than cite published data. I don't understand the edit. You say " I have no idea where you came up with those numbers", but I listed both sources for you. What are you not understanding? Did you even read the sources? TChrisMadrid (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources. What you are coming up with is listed nowhere in the article. If you're making your own calculations, that makes it your original research, which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Also, your comparison between the Capitol attack and George Floyd protests is completely off. Actual reliable sources refer to the George Floyd protests as "mostly peaceful". No reliable source does for January 6. NPR is a reliable source, but WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I am clear here, even though I used a reliable source, and used their numbers directly from the article, because I used my calculator to show a percentage, than that is considered "original research"? So if I don't state a %, and just use the numbers listed in the article, I should be fine, correct? Also, I was not comparing the Capitol Attack to the George Floyd protests. I was saying that the term "mostly peaceful", which just happened to be used in the aforementioned article is directly related to a similar % of violent offenders and was previously accepted. And since Time is a reliable source, their statement of "more than 93% have been peaceful" supports my edit. TChrisMadrid (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see what numbers you are using, but for what calculation? It's those choices that make this original research. What I'd quote from that NPR article is "the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history"--and that's a direct quote. Besides, the article is about the attack. Using the total number of demonstrators for your calculation is misleading--but worse, you are claiming that the 2,000 participants in the actual attack were "mostly peaceful", which certainly doesn't jibe with "The FBI has estimated that 2,000 people may have been involved in the attack that day". Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 shown interest in post-1992 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 the 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 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]