User talk:Cartmanbro123

Hello, Cartmanbro123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

July 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Trump derangement syndrome. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the article, rather I included information to remove some of the obvious biases to this article. What changes have I made that constitute to vandalism?


 * Your changes were such as to change the meaning of the article - apparently based on your own opinion rather than published sources. Wikipedia is always based on published reliable sources; that is the requirement for verifiability, one of the core principles of Wikipedia. You deleted some material that was supported by reliable sources, and you added something cited to WorldNetDaily which is not a reliable source. If you feel the article is biased, or that certain things need to be changed, you could start a discussion on the article's talk page. But it is disruptive to try to change the meaning or thrust of an article based on your own opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you re-added the WorldNetDaily quote to the article, but then you removed it. That was good, because WorldNetDaily is a notoriously unreliable source. If you want to edit the article, it has to be based on reliable sources - defined as published sources with editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:RS. Furthermore, what we put in articles as fact has to be from fact-based material, such as news articles or scholarly publications. We cannot cite facts to op/ed or opinion pieces no matter where they are published. For balance we sometimes do cite an opinion, provided it has due weight (i.e. it's a notable or widespread opinion, not just one person saying it) and we attribute it in the article to the person saying it. I don't think this one psychiatrist's extreme opinion reflects due weight. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)