Talk:Robert Aylmer

Original Research and misuse of sources
I explained for each edit, but an editor is IDHT, so here goes: Drawing conclusions based on material found in a catalogue entry is a violation of WP:NOR adn an inappropriate use of sourcing. Drawing conclusions based on material found in an unpublished primary source is a violation of WP:NOR and an inappropriate use of sourcing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Aylmer&diff=next&oldid=1065721072 Drawing conclusions based on material found in an unpublished primary source is a violation of WP:NOR and an inappropriate use of sourcing. Further, Wikipedia is not a repository for the publication of the content of unpublished primary records.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Aylmer&diff=next&oldid=1065721281 Problematic on several levels. It starts with a non-noteworthy remote genealogical connection that does not illuminate the article subject. It is largely synthesis (a form of original research) where sources are combined by an editor to draw conclusions not found in any of them individually. Part of this argument is (again) based on material found in an unpublished primary source in violation of WP:NOR and an inappropriate use of sourcing. Overall, the whole paragraph is an example of an editor drawing their own conclusions.] Again, misuse of unpublished primary sources for original research, use as repository, adn again drawing conclusions not derived from teh cited sources. More direct quotation and conclusions drawn from unpublished primary sources. Citation of unpublished primary source. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)