User talk:Adamyamadakelly

Twitter Endorsements
Please stop adding Twitter endorsements, as you did at 2020 United States Senate election in Delaware. What a notable person tweets is not automatically notable. A Wikipedia article should be based on what independent people have published about the subject. See WP:NOTNEWS. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What are some examples of "independent" people? Any other website? I don't see what's the difference between a twitter endorsement and an endorsement on another website. Why can't we just put a disclaimer? Lots of endorsements are done officially on twitter these days.

You are also deleting endorsements that aren't twitter endorsements, so instead of just undoing can you just fix the mistakes? Thanks.


 * Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of campaign events. It certainly should not be used for campaign purposes. Wikipedia is based on what independent sources have reported upon the subject otherwise it is not notable. An example of a independent source would be CNN or a local source like the Philadelphia Inquirer. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning for the last endorsement goes against everything you just said here. How is the Coons campaign an "independent source" while twitter is not?

'''READ THIS. I'm going to continue to use twitter as a source as it is a self-published source about themselves (i.e. someone announcing their endorsement)''' Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves "WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. "WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * I have taken this question to the WP:Teahouse. I received this response "Remember that a Wikipedia article should be based close to 100% on what independent people have published about the subject. Apart from uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, Wikipedia isn't interested in what the subject (or anybody else) has said, published, or done, unless somebody independent has talked about it in a reliable organ." Therefore, Twitter does not meet the guidelines. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it does, since it falls under "uncontroversial factual information"