User talk:Eyusuf

November 2013
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bank. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''

Please also note that user or user talk pages can't be used as soap boxes to argue a point of view. See this page for more information. Thanks. bonadea'' contributions talk 08:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to me what is personal commentary in that article. Haven't i cited a reference to explain what is fractional reserve banking. Can you not see the glaring error in the way it is explained and the way it is actually defined?


 * Your addition is almost entirely a personal opinion. For example statements like "Banks are therefore really thieves who have a legal right to practice their robbery." Or "actually I don't know of one that does not use this model." You may well think these things are true but they're just one person's view: they're not sourced to anything reliable. You have a personal opinion on fractional reserve banking, but again its an opinion and if it belongs anywhere it's here. However - everything in articles is required to be neutrally presented, reliably sourced and not based on personal research. This addition fails on all three grounds. As your addition has now been reverted by three different editors, can I also suggest it might be best to pursue discussion at Talk:Bank and see if there's a consensus for what you'd like to add, rather than just reinserting it in the article proper. Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What about the definition of fractional reserve banking can't you see the glaring error. Or don't you want to?


 * Suggest you argue your case for changing the definition at Talk:Fractional reserve banking and see if there's a consensus for altering what that article says. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No original research
Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Citing sources and Verifiability for more information.-- Moxy (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. ''

The rules are the same as they were in November. Unsourced opinions cannot be added as facts to Wikipedia articles. bonadea'' contributions talk 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)