User:Tony85poon/sandbox

On Bloody Sunday's 54th anniversary in March, Hilary Clinton hugged Booker but only shoke hand with Sanders.

I dont think Tony85poon is biased. I think they're used to using social media for their source of news. That is certainly a way to get info but its not the wiki way. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines on what is considered good types of information and good places to get that information. what constitutes sources of information on wikipedia is largely based on a system of trust. When a news reporter gets to a certain point in their career they have a lot to lose. it can take years to get a post at a news agency like the Guardian. Similarly, it takes almost a decade of hard work at university to publish a doctoral thesis. So people dont throw that away, embarrass themselves and discredit themselves by publishing nonsense. Some do and that can be the end of their career. There are different types of journalism. There is investigative journalism which is +++very good. then there is the gossip rag, sensational yellow journalism trying to generate ad revenue. this is why referencing can be confusing at first. people assume, oh it needs to be from one of these sources but then that source publishes two types of news: tabloid journalism and serious investigation. Editors need to identify which one they are looking at. In your recent edit you posted a lot of bad references. post it to the talk page and ask for comment first. you will get tagged for disruptive editing if you keep it up.

Wikipedia is about providing a summary of information. its for people who dont want to go and read 100 articles about a subject for hours, we the editors do that for them then try to condense it into a short boring blurb. what you need to do is find reliable sources and keep it short. in your recent post you posted about his popularity with Hispanic Americans but you did it in a way that constitutes WP:OR. You need to find articles from big news agencies that have a reputation to uphold and find them discussing how his attitude and policies towards Hispanic Americans affects that demographics attitudes towards him. you shouldn't just post videos of him speaking Spanish. Until you're familiar with what editors regard as high-quality sources, its a good idea to stick to the list and follow the simple guidelines. try to pack huge amounts of information into tiny little packets of sentences. WP:CS WP:USEPRIMARY

---

you get even a slight feeling that an edit you are considering might be controversial or you have not fully considered it as justified, start a discussion on the talk page. Write your suggestion for an edit and ask fellow editors to check your work for acceptability. Do not continue to edit the article until you have discussed it with other editors. If you feel their reversions are unfair, state your reasons. fellow editors will then cite various wikipedia policies to explain why they disagree. I noticed that you have a history of having articles deleted. I know this can be frustrating. consider writing a stub and heavily referencing it with reliable sources from the WP:RSP or reliable academic journals. Then you can submit this for review on the deletion appeal noticeboard. WP:DRV If you're polite enough and ask for advice on the topic then fellow editors will often offer advice. Try to pick a topic that nobody has written about before. Verify references (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This should further explain why a large list of links you added to the article were deleted. WP:CITEKILL try to sympathise with admins as they are constantly reviewing the same types of posts and it drives you insane after a while.

---

it looks like an admin also deleted a giant list of see also links you added. they dont seem to be especially important to the content of the article. perhaps if you tied them all together in some way or wrote something about why you think those references are important then they would be acceptable. I would suggest you shorten the description of the twitter exchange to fit with what is already on the page. something like, 'She is running on a platform of...she has drawn criticism from X jr and commentator Y.' but your references seem weak. secondnexus.com dennismichaellynch.com and causeaction.com arnt really note worthy sources. dennis michael lynch perhaps. but still it seems more like it was a clever move, using the exposure trump jr. provided to expand the exposure of the campaign. I would suggest focusing on just the key points of her campaign. remember every link posted on wikipedia is a vote for the value of that article as articles posted on wikipedia are far more likely to be cited elsewhere. Verify references (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

i have just double checked that DML link and it is just a recitation of an article on the Daily Caller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The Daily Caller is on the do not link list. "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be properly attributed.

post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback. Don't just throw it straight up on the page. if you post the same content that has already been rejected on a different page, you will likely get a vandalism and edit warring warning because it doesn't matter that its the first edit on that page, it will be used to argue a history of abuse.

Whereabouts
Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have great strategic importance. Among all the states, New Hampshire has the first party primary vote.