User talk:Lobelia Sackville-Baggins

Zen man 07

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Draft:Thedonald.win, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you edited the draft to add " " to several points throughout the article and also added one into my comment at the top of the page. Do not do this, as this is seen as disruptive and can even be seen as vandalizing. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a soapbox or a way to hide secret snark. It's important that you contribute in a positive manner, which means responding to criticism or notes left about your edits by improving them so that they meet guidelines. With the draft, the article doesn't yet establish how the website meets notability guidelines and so far the subreddit replacement can be more or less covered in the main parent article about r/the_Donald. It's possible, maybe even likely, that thedonald.win will gain the necessary coverage to pass notability guidelines but it doesn't at this specific point in time.
 * I must also stress that your edits must be neutral and accurate. For example, if a site is blacklisted then you need a source that explicitly states this - you cannot use the Google home page to source this since it's just the general home page. What you'd need is something like a news article about the blacklist, a statement from Google about this (or a link to the list of websites they blacklist), or an official statement from the person who owns thedonald.win. You also need to be careful about making claims about Google's intentions. Unless the site has specified the why any statement about why a site is blacklisted should be left out and it should only be "Google has blacklisted thedonald.win on (date, if specific date known)". The reason for this is that it would be unsourced speculation.
 * I'm not going to block you for inserting the notes into the draft, but I will warn you that if edits like this continue you run a very serious chance of getting blocked from editing either temporarily or permanently, depending on what is added or changed. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:ReaderofthePack, you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (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 noticeboards.
 * 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Toxic masculinity. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

 * I saw that you added the same content I mentioned above to my talk page and received a warning for an unhelpful post on the talk page of toxic masculinity. (Both of which were reverted by .) I am forced to assume that you came here with the intent to cause disruption and to not work collaboratively on Wikipedia. I gave you feedback on the draft and above on the issues with the proposed article and an explanation as to why it doesn't pass notability at this point in time. To be quite honest, the reason why it isn't yet notable is because the majority of the coverage looks to only cover it in relation to Reddit quarantining and then banning the_Donald. It doesn't show how it's independently notable at this point in time, which is essential for establishing notability. Things don't gain notability for existing and while the_Donald is/was notable, this doesn't mean that the spin off website would inherit that notability. Do I think that it will eventually gain that notability? To be honest, yes. However that would be considered original research and speculation on my part, which goes against several of Wikipedia's guidelines. That aside, there were also other issues with the draft such as notability and sourcing verification, as the sourcing didn't back up all of the claims, and you made no move to resolve any of those issues. I really wanted to work with you since I do believe that Wikipedia is best when it has people of all backgrounds and beliefs editing together, even if those beliefs differ greatly, however the key point is that we must work together. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)