User talk:NRanger1

June 2024
Hello, I'm 1AmNobody24. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nicholas Perricone, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody ( talk ) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello NRanger1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:NRanger1. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi NRanger1, What sources in the earlier version are bad? Also the earlier version was completely sourced and yours now isn't thats why i reverted it. For BLP articles Verifiability is a must, so please source your additions or remove them. If you don't have time to source them now then work on it in your Sandbox, instead of adding it to the article. Nobody ( talk ) 14:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, IAmNobody24:
 * I appreciate your feedback. You are correct--I probably shouldn't have tried to make so many extensive revisions at once.  I'm still pretty new to this.  I'll make sure I have everything sourced completely before I actually post.
 * The sources I felt were bad are PEERtrainer, which is a social-networking site, and Quackwatch, which according to Wikipedia's own article on reliable sources, should not be used for information on other living persons. Anyway, again, I appreciate your feedback.  Thanks! NRanger1 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)