User talk:Kafir 1776

Welcome!

 * }

June 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Charles Mainor has been reverted. Your edit here to Charles Mainor was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y7ZwQf5EZQE) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable and verifiable sources are required for claims about Mainor
Your latest edit to the article for Charles Mainor reinserts material that violates Wikipedia policy and will be removed. Policy on synthesis ang original research require that material be based on sources that describe an event, not on your interpretation thereof. The claimthat Mainor violated rules needs a reliable and verifiable source stating exactly that; there are legislators from both parties on every committee and perceived violations will be reported in the press. Please do not reinsert this claim without the required reliable and verifiable sources from such places as newspapers and magazines to support the charge. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your latest edit uses another link to the same partisan video clip. Without an independent reliable and verifiable source -- such as a newspaper or magazine article -- this material will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to your edit about New Jersey Assemblyman Charles Mainor and the need for sourcing allegations of wrongdoing, to which I did so in the original edit. Apparently Wikipedia does not appreciate links to videos referenced from Youtube, so a .mp4 format video is here: http://dirtydeedsdonedirtcheap.net/video/CharlesMainor.mp4. The video originates from the New Jersey Assembly and is shows the complete context.Kafir 1776 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This finesses the issue that Wikipedia doesn't like YouTube videos, but it doesn't address the underlying problem. A video produced by a partisan organization making a claim is an extremely unsuitable reference. Given the nature of the claim that Mainor is violating the law in this meeting, a strong, independent reliable and verifiable source is needed to support the claim. Surely with an offense this grave someone has alerted the press and one of the state's many independent newspapers have covered the claim. Without that kind of reference this material will be removed again. Reposting the video only perpetuates the problem. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What more do you want for a source than a video taken from WITHIN the assembly DURING the proceedings? Is A/V footage that of someone that shows the entire context no longer considered a legitimate source?Kafir 1776 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The video is a primary source, and the claim that a rule was violated was based on an interpretation that we see a rule violation occurring in the clip. Per PRIMARYSOURCES, such sources are not appropriate. With a violation this big, someone must have reported the claim in the Star-Ledger, the Times (of Trenton or New York) or one of the state's many publications that regularly report on such issues. That's what's needed. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has been reported to the Star-Ledger http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/sweeneys_gun_bill_stalls_in_co.html. Kafir 1776 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article states "Realizing the bill did not have the votes to advance, the committee’s chairman, Charles Mainor (D-Hudson), stopped the vote and called a recess. When the committee started back up, they moved on to another bill." That the bill died in committee is in the article; Bills die in committee every day. The claims that "Assembly Chairman, Mainor has violated committee rules" and that "This is a violation of assembly rule 12-3" are based exclusively on *your* interpretation of this event, and thus violate Wikipedia policy on original research. The Star-Ledger says nothing about this and all of the other sources -- the video and the link to Assembly rules -- are primary sources that you are using to advance your interpretation. You MUST find reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim like this. Alansohn (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Charles Mainor
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Particularly note that material in a Biography of a Living Person must be well referenced if it involves accusations of wrong doing. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)