User talk:IBestEditor



Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Silverman (activist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Church and Race. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to John Podesta. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Neither The Catholic League nor a First Things blog are reliable sources for factual claims about a living person. Please discuss your proposed additions on the article talk page.'' NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 - a caution
Do not revert other editors without a good explanation in the edit summary. You made significant reverts with no edit summary at all here and again, to the same article here. Reverting without an edit summary is considered impolite.

Also, do not revert to restore content &mdash; particularly in a biography of a living person &mdash; that has been the subject of a policy-based challenged by other editors. This is all the more true when two or three or four different editors revert one of your edits. Instead of unilaterally reverting, you should bring the discussion to the article talk page, or the appropriate noticeboard and try to gain consensus.

Please also review Identifying reliable sources. Generally, opinion pieces - especially on controversial subjects - are not adequate sources for factual statements made in Wikipedia's voice. Neither are polemical blogs. Neutralitytalk 01:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)