User talk:LandonWeberMSU

Your recent edits at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections
Hi LandonWeberMSU! I undid your recent edits to the article 2018 United States House of Representatives elections (specifically, this one and this one, restoring to this last good version (lgv)), and I wanted to let you know why: Although technically I "reverted," the sentence as it stands right now still has the same information as your revision, cited to the same secondary source. By all means, if you find more/better secondary sources to add to or replace the CNN cite, please add them. Happy editing! Levivich (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) This edit had this edit summary: "Added additional source regarding House popular vote margin/historical precedent of Democrats performance as minority party . Do not remove unless you find a contradictory source." Perhaps you didn't notice but the "additional source" you "added" (this CNN article) was the same source that was there before. However, previously, it was cited using a citation template (see also template:citation), and your edit cited it without using that template. The rest of the article uses citation templates, so for consistency, all citations in the article should be using templates
 * 2) "2018 United States House of Representatives elections" doesn't need to be said in the lead section because that is the name of the article
 * 3) "2018" should not be linked back to "2018 United States House of Representatives elections" because that is the article; an article shouldn't have a link to itself
 * 4) We cannot say "largest margin ever" and link to the official House results as a source. Doing so would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The official House results don't say anything about the 2018 election. Luckily, we have other sources (like that CNN article), which are secondary source (see WP:PSTS) and directly support the sentence.

Your recent edits at Blue Dog Coalition
Hi LandonWeberMSU, it's me again! :-) I also reverted your edits (1, 2, 3, 4) at Blue Dog Coalition to the last good version and wanted to let you know why. For the infobox field "political position," the first source cited says this: "...the Blue Dog Co­ali­tion of cen­ter-left and cen­ter-right Demo­crats ..." The second source cited says this: "...Blue Dogs and other center-right Democrats..." As a result, Wikipedia says "center-left to center-right." We cannot say "center to center-right," because that's not what the cited sources say. Even though you and I may both disagree with a source (and I agree with you that Blue Dogs are center-to-center-right, not center-left), we can't base a Wikipedia article on our opinion. It has to be based on the reliable sources. If you want to discuss this further, for example if you think the National Journal source is an outlier and all the other reliable sources agree Blue Dogs are "center-right" not "center-left," please post to the article's talk page (rather than edit-warring). Note: there is already a two-year-old conversation on the talk page about this exact issue. Take care! Levivich (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Postscript: After I posted this note, but before I hit the revert button, reverted the same edits, I imagine for the same reasons. Levivich (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Blue Dog Coalition Toa Nidhiki05 23:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.