User talk:Wikireadia2020

Using Wikipedia as a source

I reverted your edit to Boca Raton, Florida because it relied on using Wikipedia as a source. Please note that user-generated content, which includes Wikipedia, are not considered reliable sources, and should not be used as sources for articles in Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from independent, reliable sources. - Donald Albury 12:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many unreliable sources, it wasn't a controversial edit - isn't witness testimony enough? How should I substantiate it, with uploaded photographic evidence or documents?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs) 8:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The presence of questionable and unreliable sources cited in some Wikipedia articles is not an acceptable excuse for using such sources. Experienced editors regularly remove unreliable sources when they find them. As I stated above, it is one of Wikipedia's core policies that everything in article space is verifiable from independent, reliable sources. Eyewitness testimony can only be used when it has been reported in reliable sources. Find published, reliable sources that discuss the matter you want to add to the article, and then cite those sources. If you have any questions about whether a source is reliable, first check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if the source has been previously discussed by the community, and, if you do not find the questionable source listed there, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, please sign all comments that you place on a talk page (not in an article) by placing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your comment. - Donald Albury 19:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptivefare.com

This is not a reliable source. Do you have an affiliation with the website? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis you say it's unreliable? What is reliable? CNN? That publishes daily lies and misrepresentations?

No, I have no affiliation with the site, nor any other site.

See Wikipedia's discussion of reliable sources. I haven't looked through your contributions to see what page at disruptivefare.com you cited, but it seems fair to say that a website whose title, on its home page, is "My Website", and whose About page consists of pseudo-Latin isn't an established, respected source of sound, peer- or editor-reviewed information. Largoplazo (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Alex Konanykhin. General Ization ^Talk 00:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the source. Wikipedia is by default poorly sourced, if you want people to contribute why are you declining all the edits?

We definitely don't want people adding unsourced material to biographies of living persons. BLP articles are given extra consideration in that regard. Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Securities Industry Essentials

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Securities Industry Essentials requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/qualification-exams/securities-industry-essentials-exam. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also discovered you had added copyright material to 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, Sandy Run, South Carolina, and Calhoun County, South Carolina. I have cleaned these articles. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Securities Industry Essentials

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Securities Industry Essentials has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appeared to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't recreate any of the alleged copyrighted materials, I have contacted the copyright holder for permission, they will respond tomorrow. In the meantime, I have written in my own words information and referenced it. Wikireadia2020 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

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-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 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.

- Mr X 🖋 22:19, 1 December 2019 (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, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 23:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will cease from making any further edits. I read your original research policy it doesn't apply here. I provided several sources (more than one) to each statement which were credible, such as Washington Post. It's quite obvious that Wikipedia has been hijacked by troll armies. Here it is for your reference:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. El_C 00:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this policy - I didn't comment on fellow editors? I'm the one being attacked, right? I'm just trying to contribute, and I'm being threatened. May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INDENT. Anyway, a response which includes statements such as: "It's quite obvious that Wikipedia has been hijacked by troll armies" are below the standard that Wikipedia sets. El_C 00:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. Can you explain what was the issue with my original edit? I don't see that it falls into the 'original research' issue and I provided sources like Washington Post. I understand that it's controversial, however, the reason it was deleted doesn't match. I'm trying to make useful contributions as I'm an avid Wikipedia reader for 20 years and since 2016 it seems that the quality is waning. May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an original research and a biographies of living persons violation. You make the connection between the claim of him working for the CIA (unreliable source) with the Washington Post's mention of his internship therein. That synthesis is not permitted. You need for fairly represent what reliable sources say. El_C 00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question

Do you know how to follow a logical argument in chronological order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.184.213 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tolling agreement moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Tolling agreement, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 23:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scribd

Scribd is not a reliable source. In fact, self-published sources and WP:PRIMARY sources should be avoided, especially for controversial subjects. - Mr X 🖋 16:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scribd is not the source, the case is filed in federal courts, which you cannot link to. Case 3:19-cv-00889 Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 47 PageID# 1 Scribd is a hosting service that allows users to upload documents, such as case files. --May intelligence prevail.. (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what Scribd is. You can't use it, and you can't use primary sources for the type of edit you made. Please use reliable, secondary sources. - Mr X 🖋 17:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]