User talk:Richard Lionhearth

You're invited to the Teahouse.
Great!Richard Lionhearth (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines you need to be aware of

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * User-generated sources (such as blogs, social media profiles, self-published books, or pay-to-print books) are generally not reliable sources. The only exception is when an already notable subject makes a claim about themselves that is not countered or doubted by independent sources.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.
 * Biographies of persons assumed to be alive are held to especially high standards of verifiability -- all unsourced information may be removed, no matter how plausible.

Your attempted article on Sean Hross utterly failed pretty much all those points, and further attempts at the same or similar articles would be disruptive. Here are my usual recommendations for how to write articles but to be honest, I don't think you're ready for that yet.

I strongly recommend that you do not try to write another article for a long time, or even edit articles relating to living persons or politics until you complete our tutorial and successfully edit in some other area for a few hundred edits to demonstrate that you understand the general idea of reliable sourcing. After that, I would still recommend that you use edit requests instead of directly editing pages relating to biographies or politics until you demonstrate that you understand how reliable sources apply to those areas. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

SH is the main subject from several mainstream newspapers and radios (Kronen Zeitung, Sonntagsblick and Inothernewsradio). I explained it in the Talk section with url links included. No user-generated source as well. Thanks anyway Ian.thomson Richard Lionhearth (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Inothernewsradio is in no way mainstream. This article from them cites Manly Palmer Hall as a supposed authority on science, and other articles from them are spreading conspiracy theories about 5g cell phone signals.  To call Inothernewsradio is mainstream rather suggests that you shouldn't be editing.  Kronen Zeitung has been caught publishing fake news and is noted for its smear campaigns -- it's not reliable.  I can't find any trace of the Sonntagsblick article through any authentic or reliable means.  Someone advocating Chemtrail conspiracy theory on Slideshare (a user generated site) is not an authentic or reliable means of verifying that Sonntagsblick ever wrote about Hross.  The article also cited Lyndon LaRouche as if he was reliable.
 * In short, you know nothing about what a reliable source is. I'm not going to waste time on any further arguments about that point.  Find a different topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Get it Ian.thomson, thanks Richard Lionhearth (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User has managed to get themselves blocked at frWP and esWP as a minimum for continuing the same editing. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was aware that they were blocked on those sites before coming here. The AIV report was how I found out about them.  If being blocked on one site automatically justified being blocked on all of them, then global blocks wouldn't be a separate function.  (Also, certain language Wikipedias are overrun by some politics that could be enforced by proxy if we let every admin perform global blocks; not that that's the case here).  In my experience, users who would cite fringe sources while writing about conspiracy theorists as if they were correct usually tend to personalize a block as just the administrator's 'biased and opinionated intolerance' instead of a sign that they're violating community's standards.  Richard Lionhearth seems to have gotten the message, as his last action was the acknowledgement right above your message.  If he's not continuing the behavior that got him blocked, there's not really any reason to block him on this site.  (And no one has attempted to recreate Sean Hross since I nuked it, nor has anyone tried to start Draft:Sean Hross).  While I'm quite trigger happy when it comes to conspiracy theory advocates, had (*points above*) told Richard Lionhearth that I don't think he should be making articles, and haven't checked every single records on the other sites, I'm a bit gobsmacked that frWP and esWP handed out a vandalism block instead of explaining things.  The only thing I can figure is their vandalism standards don't line up with ours.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * commenting only, not advocating.