User talk:Gogailyinthedark

Welcome!
Hello, Gogailyinthedark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions 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: 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! Doug Weller talk 12:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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

Your Eton College edit
You're new so aren't expected to know our policies and guidelines.

1. You added your own analysis commentary. We don't allow that - see no original research.

2. All text must be able to be backed by a reliable source, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Some of yours was, but a community discussion decided that The Daily Mail was not a reliable source. To be exact, "There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links are still present.'" That's from Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a good guide to what we have decided about some sources.

3. All quotations must be attributed to the person who is being quoted.

4. It was unbalanced, see WP:NPOV. It can be hard to write in the fashion our NPOV requires, but we all need to try.

5. It was far too long in proportion to the article.

I hope this helps. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)