User talk:Mecbird

 <div style="background-color: Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.  Happy editing!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)   Hello, Mecbird, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * 1) E2F9ED;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) A3BFB1;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting started
 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
 * 1) E2F9ED;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) A3BFB1;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Finding your way around
 * Table of contents
 * Directories and indexes
 * Department directory
 * 1) E2F9ED;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) A3BFB1;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Editing articles
 * How to develop an article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * 1) E2F9ED;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) A3BFB1;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting help
 * Frequently asked questions
 * Cheatsheet
 * Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
 * The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
 * Help pages
 * Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * 1) E2F9ED;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) A3BFB1;color:black;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How you can help
 * Community Portal
 * Join a WikiProject
 * Follow Wikipedia etiquette
 * Practice civility
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

March 2022
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Meghan Murphy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Medium is not a reliable source and you cannot conduct original research by connecting trans suicides to an individual's comments.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm frustrated with all the assumptions made in this. I can think of zero reason for me to lay out my questions if they weren't sincere, but you've responded with a tone that suggests you think they couldn't be.

What I want to know is why referring to Meghan Murphy as a TERF is objectionable. I suspect Nick Fuentes would object to his page linking him to white nationalism, and yet it does because that is who he is. As you can tell looking at my account I'm new to editing wikipedia. I believe Meghan Murphy's page is incomplete, and I hardly think I'm the only one particularly considering how one-sided the sources cited throughout it are. The reason I asked for the appeal is I want specific feedback as to, you've given me some and I'm thankful for it but you've also ignored a great deal. Mecbird (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The short version is:
 * You may not use WP:WIKIVOICE to label a person something negative or controversial (which TERF is) without reliable sources widely applying that label
 * You may not introduce your own point of view into articles, only the points of view expressed by reliable sources (cf., WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH)
 * You may not connect two things (in this case, Murphy and transphobic murders) unless reliable sources explicitly make that connection. Note that news articles might include both items in an article (often in the format "here's a bad thing" and later "why this might matter"), but unless reliable sources say Murphy's rhetoric has led to murders, we absolutely cannot say that on Wikipedia.
 * Two other things: I was mistaken when I said suicides, as you pointed out, and as a non-binary person I have no love for Murphy. I do not want anyone to mistake my comments here as defense of character but only as enforcement of Wikipedia's standards.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond as again, I am new to this and while I can admit this all did start with an element of shitpostingbrain but my repeat edits were because I was trying to figure out how to include what I see as glaring omissions in the page. I can understand the errors in some of my phrasings, but I'm still struggling to figure out exactly how to fix the fact that I think the original article is slanted and incomplete, but I think that's going to be a matter of me sorting through more sources. It's just tough because so much of the mainstream coverage of Meghan Murphy that I can find is baaad, so I guess it'll take awhile. Mecbird (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March continued
User:EvergreenFir could you please have a look at Mecbird's edits today at J. K. Rowling, where they are editwarring to add a non-reliable source (Youtube) and original research  to a BLP that is subject to sanctions. Mecbird, you have already been given a last warning above: please see WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, as well as WP:RS and WP:BLP, and the sanctions alert posted to your talk page below before you made these edits. Your edits warrant a further block. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I understand if I'm just not supposed to link to YouTube in any context, but the original research accusation I keep getting is confusing to me because in a section of her bio that is devoted to various public opinions I shared one (non-fringe) opinion. From my perspective I posted a link to an opinion on her opinion without presenting it as anything other than that. Does wikipedia have a concrete list of what is determined as a reliable source? Like I know there's guidelines but if there's a concrete list for cross-referencing I would find that very useful.


 * You'll notice in my re-edit I changed it from a citation to a link, because that to me carries different implications. I wasn't trying to start an edit war. I keep getting painted as a bad actor but I'm just trying to figure out the wikipedia ecosystem, which has been made more difficult by some accusations being levied against me being objectively incorrect (stating that I linked Murphy's words to suicides when I did not and suggesting I did is indicative that my source [a study from UCLA] wasn't even clicked on - if law enforcement gave me a ticket with an error that substantial it wouldn't hold weight in court, regardless of anything else about the situation[I do believe that I understand why that specific edit was bad based on it being in the first segment of someone's bio and wouldn't make it again]) Aside from not doubling down on edits or linking to YouTube I'd like to know what else I should take from this. The sanctions alert reads as so vague and broad to me that I literally don't know know what to make of it. Mecbird (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Several things to know:
 * You can sign your edits on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~ ) after them; notice that your edit above is unsigned.
 * You will do well on Wikipedia to understand NEVER edit war. Once an edit has been reverted once, generally, you should not re-instate it (there are some exceptions to that, but will leave that for now).  In this case, your edit at J. K. Rowling was removed, yet you reinstated it without discussing or understanding. In any case, that would be problematic.  In the case of an article that is 1) a WP:BLP and 2) under sanctions, that is extremely problematic and block-worthy.  And in the case of Rowling, which is 3) a Featured article, see WP:FAOWN, that makes your reinstating the text bad now in three significant ways.
 * You can read about reliable sources at WP:RS. You can see a partial list of perennial bad offenders at WP:RSP. When in doubt, don't use a source, or inquire on talk. The Youtube you linked here would not be acceptable for any content about Rowling.
 * You can read about original research at WP:OR. This text is original research (that is, your own conclusions rather than a conclusion drawn by a reliable source): the video has nearly 5 million views but it is unknown whether or not Rowling has seen it
 * Finally, if you believe the discretionary sanctions wording is vague, perhaps you didn't thoroughly read it. Please be sure to read the contents of *all* of the pages that have been provided to you here on your talk page before continuing to add content to an article that is immediately viewable to millions of people on a highly trafficked website and that affect a very real, live person. Discuss before re-instating a bad edit. Hope this helps, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond. I guess my one question is, is the original research part because of 'it is unknown if Rowling has seen it' because the number of views isn't really disputable. Mecbird (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for signing your entry. I have correctly indented it for you; see this information about how to indent and thread conversations on Wikipedia for better readability.  The number of views is not mentioned by any secondary source, so it is not only original research (your uncited conclusions), it is WP:UNDUE. You would do well to stay away from BLP editing until you have thoroughly understood Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am busy, and responding here has been time consuming because of the edit conflicts as you keep adding to your posts, so I will unwatch your talk page now, and trust that admins Evergreenfir and User:Daniel Case will follow as needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender controversies sanctions alert
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v  a little blue Bori 23:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Annotate your edits
Mecbird, remember to annotate your edits. It's Wikipedia policy. Thank you! Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I aim to, is there a specific unannotated edit you're referring to? Mecbird (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry misunderstood the meaning of annotation in this context, you mean add a summary of what the edit was, got it. I'm new here and appreciate the feedbackMecbird (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)