User talk:Barackaddict

Welcome!
Hello, Barackaddict, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  Acroterion   (talk)   22:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   22:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Torquay United F.C., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Woodroar, why isn't Forbes.com a good reference? Forbes is a very reputable and verifiable magazine. If you read the article I cited, you would have seen that all of the information in the article was from a press release from Feminist Frequency. My edit to the article was entirely fact-based and whilst it is a controversial topic what I stated was that scrutiny has been applied to the use of funds. That is undeniably true and the article cited was clear evidence of that. Whilst the article was an opinion piece, it represents CLEAR evidence of scrutiny being applied to the use of funds. I cannot understand how factually true information is "Controversial".

Barackaddict (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Forbes "Contributor" network is a bit of an anomaly in media. Their "Contributors" aren't journalists within Forbes' editorial control, but instead independent bloggers who can, to a certain extent, write whatever they want. You may have noticed the "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" disclaimer on that article. It's on every Contributor piece. This means that everything at forbes.com/sites is essentially considered a self-published opinion piece. Now some (perhaps many) of the Contributors could be considered experts in their respective fields, but we can never use self-published sources to support claims regarding other living persons. You can read more about this policy at WP:BLPSPS, but you'll probably want to read all of our policies on biographies of living persons and verifiability, especially on identifying reliable sources. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)