User talk:Nathan buck1

Welcome!
Hello, Nathan buck1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Linda Sarsour have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Missvain (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know.--Nathan buck1 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Linda Sarsour. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Living people
Hi, I see you've already been giving the discretionary sanctions notice above about living people, but its a long template that is difficult to read so I'll explain more. Basically, Wikipedia is depending on how you measure either the 5th or 6th most popular website in the world. That means what we write has the real potential to harm real people. David Duke, regardless of his beliefs, is a real living person. That means he is protected by our policies on living people. The reason I removed the felony conviction from the lead was because as written, it implied him being a felon was connected to all the other unsavoury things about him. That isn't true, so we have an obligation both to him ant the reader to not present it that way. I hope you become more active on Wikipedia: it really is a wonderful place, and you clearly want to help. If you have any questions about living people or Wikipedia in general, my talk page is always open. Have a great rest of the day! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please self revert on Rachel's Tomb
You have just broken 1RR on Rachel's Tomb, please self revert, or risk being reported.

Also, please read what is says on the top of Talk:Rachel's Tomb: you do not have 500 edits, and should therefor not be editing this article at all.

Thirdly, when a recognised expert like professor Pringle says that a traveller reported it as a mosque in 1421, then we really don't care what Nadav Shragai says in The Jerusalem Post. Huldra (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)