User talk:Pourelle

Welcome!
Hello, Pourelle, 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 Asexuality 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and formatting
Also see what I stated on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

LGBT Rights in Syria, and reliable sources
Hi Pourelle,

Thanks for your contributions to LGBT rights in Syria, and in particular, thank you for paying attention to Wikipedia's guidelines for adding footnotes attributing sources for the content you add.

Unfortunately, I had to revert this edit of yours concerning the TQILA group, even though you had two references for that edit. The report itself on the supposed "TQILA" group came from a Twitter post. Twitter has no editing team or peer review, users can publish whatever they want. Self-published sources and user-generated content like Twitter posts generally do not qualify as reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia sourcing. See WP:SPS. While Al Jazeera would normally be considered a reliable source in its news articles, the link you posted was an opinion piece and not a news article, and in particular, it was an opinion piece about a Twitter post, so doubly inappropriate as a reliable source, in my opinion. Pink news might sometimes be considered a reliable source, but in this case it was merely reporting on the Twitter post, so I'd say no, in this case.

Again, thanks for being diligent about adding sources; now please ramp it up and ensure that the sources you add also meet the reliability guideline as well. In the future, if you're not sure if something should be considered a reliable source or not, please see WP:Identifying reliable sources; you can also start a discussion on the article talk page, or search the RSN archives or post a question at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)