User talk:50.51.15.239

January 2018
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sam Hyde, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is what I expect from people like you, and this is why no one respects Wikipedia. Of course, you delete something which is factually accurate. You didn't bother to spend ten seconds looking it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Oshwah. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * The burden is on you to add the reference, not the person who sees the unsupported assertion and removes it. Even better would be for you to provide a print reference rather than a YouTube link.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The citation is a youtube link because the source is a youtube video. What print reference would there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A secondary source that discusses the offer, rather than a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sourcing, as they establish that the subject is a notable person, thing or event, rather than that something simply exists.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @IP 50.51.15.239. Please do not try to readd this again without providing a much better source than a user-generated YouTube video. Wikipedia has pretty restrict requirements when it comes to biographies about living persons, and self-published sources used to support information about third parties is never acceptable and even comments individuals publish about themselves needs to be used very carefully. Try to find an independent/secondary reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia) which supports the claim being made and then propose the addition of this content on Talk:Sam Hyde. The formatting issues can be cleaned up by others, but an inappropriate source will not be accepted regardless of whether it's properly formatted. Also, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You know that is bullshit because the majority of claims made on Wikipedia have no citations of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sam Hyde shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a secondary source, which any of you could have done very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you keep edit warring over this, your account will very likely be blocked by an adminsitrator to prevent any further disruption. As for problems with sourcing in other articles, there are over 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia and many have problems; however, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, this does not mean the same mistakes should be repeated in this article. If you'd like to be here for Wikipedia and help clean up these various problems, then there's lots of ways to help. If you want to be here for yourself and keep trying to force this content into the Hyde article, then the following will happen: (1) your account will be blocked, (2) the article will be protected, or (3) an combination of (1) and (2). The first case might not mean anything to you because it's an IP address, but it might mean that someone genuinely interested in contributing to Wikipedia may be prevent from doing so. You're best chance is to discuss things on the talk page to establish whether there's a consensus for including this content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the secondary source?

You people seem to have no concern for truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What might be true is not always verifiable per WP:VNT, and what is verifiable doesn't always merit inclusion per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNDUE. The website you cited might not be considered reliable per WP:RS and WP:BLPSOURCES. This is an article about a living person, which means the sources cited should be very reputable and solid with a strong history of editorial control. I think it would be a good idea to discuss the reliabilty of the source at WP:RSN, to get more feedback as to whether meets Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You can watch the video with your own eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I can and if after doing so I want to go onto Facebook, Twitter or my own personal website and post about it I can. You can do the same as well. However, that's not how Wikipedia's operates and not Wikipedia's role, which is why the Wikipedia community has established various policies and guidelines that all editors are expected to adhere to when it comes to editing. If you disagree with these or feel they are too restrictive, then you can try to change them through discussion at places like WP:VP/P or you can find a website which has less rules and restrictions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

It doesn't matter that there is a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It matters that you're edit-warring - that's a bright-line violation that you've ignored after being warned, so you're blocked for a brief time. You can't edit-war to include your own preferred version. In any case, the source you cite doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirement. You've got the secondary part, but you need a reliable secondary source, one that's not just a meme aggregator. You need a consensus that the sourcing is reliable, and that the event itself is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should explain to me why we cannot include true facts without a secondary source, as if any of us dispute the truth of what I posted. Of course, Wikipedia has its own biases, and most claims on this website have no citations of any kind. Why dispute a fact which we can all recognize as true? If you needed secondary sources for every single claim, you would have to delete probably more than half of all the claims made on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.15.239 (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)