User talk:Spreadingthetruthhaha

January 2022
Hello, I'm Wgullyn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to World Hijab Day—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wgullyn ( talk ) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello - I completely understand, however what I do not understand is how it’s not constructive. There are many misconceptions on that page that can mislead other individuals - therefore feeding them misinformation. I hope you can see how I’m just trying to assist Wikipedia with becoming more accurate and less steorotypical and misinformative. Spreadingthetruthhaha (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's unconstructive because it's opinionated and unsourced and goes against our central policy Neutral point of view. I've reverted it, too. Please don't add it again, and please only add material supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for "spreading the truth" according to individual opinion. Bishonen &#124; tålk 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC).


 * It is not opinionated or unsourced - it says this on worldhijabday.com and I could add a link if needed. I’m highly certain the actual website for the event is a reliable source and I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the truth references to accurate information. Isn’t Wikipedia to educate others on topics using accurate information and reliable sources, like you just said? I’m not sure why you just contradicted yourself. Spreadingthetruthhaha (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have slightly altered it and cited a reliable source (the actual worldhijabday.com) and I am sure it is a neutral view, like you requested as this is what the organisers of the event stated was its purpose. It just lacked a bit of information that could mislead others - so I added that piece of content. Thank you. Spreadingthetruthhaha (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * (If you could please indent comments using colons, as I have now done for you, conversations become easier to follow.) I'm afraid worldhijabday.com is far from being a reliable source. It's a primary source which promotes World Hijab Day. Did you follow my link to our Reliable sources content guideline? It explains that "articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Note "independent". That means independent from the subject of the article. Obviously worldhijabday.com is not independent from the subject World Hijab Day. Also, the guideline explains that "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible" (my italics). Wikipedia does not uncritically relay what primary sources say. Please do have a read of the guideline, which I have now linked for you twice. You may find the essay Avoid mission statements helpful also. When you use the word "neutral" about the very website promoting World Hijab Day, I don't know what to say to you; it baffles me completely. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * PS, obviously Facebook isn't a reliable source either. The whole lead section needs some work, in order to function as a summary of the whole article, with the criticism incorporated. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
 * PPS, I have now added a couple of sentences, so that the lead more adequately represents the article. See WP:LEAD. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC).