User talk:Jarebear821

Welcome!
Hi Jarebare821! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Pilaz (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi and welcome, some notes
... Jarebear821. I wanted to give you friendly heads up about the WP:3RR rule: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period... Some exceptions apply of course but defending your non-vandalism editions is not one of them. Other defences of your edits could consist of talking on the talk page, as was more effective in this case.

I note your committment to ridding Wikipedia of unreliable sources. When removing the citations you should attempt to find a citation for the information. Otherwise you are just adding to the pile of 469,250 citations needed. The point of citations is to verify that the content is valid on the page. By having references for content included, readers and editors can actually see where the information is coming from. By removing these citations, the text loses it's connection to it's source and it's metric of reliability. There are instances where this will be counter productive. If you cannot find a reliable source to replace less reliable ones but still think that the information is accurate and valid for inclusion, you can try Better source needed rather than cn (Or god forbid: ).

Reliablity in the eyes of the editor. Is dot esports unreliable or reliable ? WP:VG/S says reliable. Also note that WP:PRIMARY sources such as twitter can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by persons with access to the primary source (butchered quote from WP:primary). In this edit, the primary source was likely appropriate. Make sure that you're aware of the policies regarding primary and secondary sources.

Finally, make sure that your citations support your additions. In this edit you change the H3podcast leftovers podcast from a left leaning to leftwing, citing dot esports, but the source calls the podcast politics-centric. As I slowly run out of transitional words I'd like to conclude by saying that I think your scrutiny of sources is a welcome attribute, particularly in the more unpolished internety pages. Happy editing, Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you are certainly right that removing sources alone is problematic, and that WP:3RR applies (note that an exception for BLP violations exists). However, it's worth reminding ourselves that,in addition to the policies and guidelines you cited, WP:BLP applies to pages such as LilyPichu. In BLPs, the threshold for removal is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion, whatever the tone of the material in question is. And there is no doubt that material only supported by primary sources constitutes poorly sourced material: as WP:BLPPRIMARY states, primary sources may only be placed as a supplement if primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source. The exception to this rule is WP:ABOUTSELF, which Jarebear821 should be made aware of, which allows the use of primary sources, including self-published sources such as Twitter, on the condition that the subject of the article is talking about themselves and that it does not have extraordinary claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof). In the specific diff Pabsoluterince provided, the tweet was clearly WP:ABOUTSELF-compliant, so it was in my view inappropriate to remove it. Pilaz (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some excellent points. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)