User talk:JoeyC87

November 2018
Hello, I'm Tarheel95. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Chad Morris— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Tarheel95 (Talk) 02:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did with this edit to Gus Malzahn. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Donner60, I think you're being nice, but I appreciate your friendly spirit. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If the information is true, what is the problem Donner60?

Donner60
Donner60, it is a known fact that Gus Malzahn has a losing record against LSU, Georgia, and Alabama. JoeyC87 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If it is a known fact, then there must be a source. Wikipedia provides citations for readers who may question content, especially negative content about living persons. "Known facts" are not reliable sources. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Verifiability."


 * The following quote from a Wikipedia guideline page is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Verifiability."


 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Identifying reliable sources.


 * Neutral point of view "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."


 * "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. Manual of Style/Words to watch. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."


 * See also Biographies of living persons. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, ok, whatever.
 * See, we're not actually here to joke around ("whatever"). You're adding negative information about living people in the wrong places, probably from some sort of fandom. I hate Auburn as much as the next guy, probably a lot more, but this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

JoeyC87, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gus Malzahn. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Telfordbuck (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)