User talk:203.29.141.94

April 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please get on the talk page to see my rationale to revert your edit. Thank you!'' SunDawn (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
Hello. This is about your edits on Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Here is the rationale for my revert of your change shown on this diff

First of all, your statement of "This didn't make much sense considering TikTok was made for people above 13." is violating WP:OR as it is clear that this statement is not made by reliable sources, thus this constitutes original research that could not be used in Wikipedia. If a reliable source (WP:RS) stated this, you can add it on the article.

Also, your statement that "The only people at fault here are both the FTC and parents of children under 13 years of age." is also violating WP:OR, with the same rationale as above.

Your statement that "A lot of children below 13 especially children between 9 to 12 are not happy with this feature and do not like it they claim to miss being able to use the features that anyone can do such as commenting, subscribing and and notifications. They are also not pleased that the recommendations they get as it is normally videos based for children who are not even in pre school yet, some even lie about their age just to access the rest of the features of Youtube." and refers to this is also violating WP:OR as the video in question didn't support the statements. Comments made on the YouTube videos does not constitute sources that are WP:RS so this particular statement will still be WP:OR.

Your final statements "By all means it is recommended to take advantage of freedom of speech to say that the COPPA laws should be changed for being too broad and should only take action if the data collecting is harmful. Also from the person making this paragraph here is a bit of criticism. Kids who are 9 and above would wanna watching gaming videos over finger family songs and being forced to learned colors. Also the FTC has no right for suing a video simply because it was not marked as made for kids. No other government have complained about Youtube collecting data from children so at the very least allow Youtube to allow the current features for all ages in other countries. " is also WP:OR as it is not stated by sources that are reliable and verifiable.

Thank you, and please ask me if you have any questions! SunDawn (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. SunDawn (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)