User talk:Clarence.Darrow23

Welcome!
Hello, Clarence.Darrow23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Michael F. Easley Jr. does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Also take a look at our Reliable sources guideline. An advocacy group such as autisminnocenceproject.org will usually not make for a "reliable source" per our rules.

Anyway, 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Michael F. Easley Jr. article
I understand you are frustrated with Easley's handling of autism-related cases and you want to shine a light on this. The problem is you can't do that here the way you're going about it. You're violating several fundamental rules.

First, look carefully at autisminnocenceproject.org is not a reliable source as defined for our purposes. I couldn't get the https://archive.ada.gov/cjta.html link to open but it is almost certainly reliable. That said, unless it mentions Easley and autism, it's not sufficient to make the assertions you've made about Easley.
 * Reliable Sources Guideline.

If you continue to make these assertions without reliable sources to back them up, you run into multiple policy issues. See:
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not an advocacy site. That's not what we're here for.
 * Wikipedia has no opinion on anything.
 * Biographies of Living Persons (BLP). Ever since the Seigenthaler biography incident, Wikipedia has been very sensitive, for ethical and legal reasons, about putting anything in a BLP that isn't backed up by a reliable source.

Consider looking for an article in a newspaper such as The News and Observer that covers that issue. If there is one, use it.

Discuss any major edits on the article's talk page first: Talk:Michael F. Easley Jr.

I'd really like to see you help us build Wikipedia but you are going to get blocked, even banned from editing if you keep doing what you're doing (adding stuff to BLPs without reliable sources). -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
Your recent editing history at Michael F. Easley Jr. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)