User talk:Taroq

Welcome!
Hello, Taroq, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Taroq, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Tariff have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Tariffs article becoming unbalanced?
You are doing great work on Tariffs, thank you (apart from the newbie error above – we've all been there!). But the article is at risk of becoming unbalanced because you are only adding material that supports the thesis that tariffs are A Good Thing. This is not generally accepted, because it implies that trade must be a zero sum game, if I win then it must be that you lose. The reality is that we both lose. You clearly have access to a lot of material on this topic, which (despite my user name!) I know next to nothing about, so presumably you can find the contrary point of view. If so, please try hard to incorporate it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "If it were easy, anybody could do it!" No need to apologise, I know that there is a lot of work involved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can crack this, I think you would have a convincing wp:good article candidate. It is already looking very good. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just come across Writing for the opponent which you may find helpful. We should all be such saints, we can but try! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

to the point of being a political statement
You are making the same error as Andrew Wakefield made on vaccination: rather than looking for evidence to disprove a thesis as required by the scientific method, you are adding more and more citations to support a particular viewpoint. That is not how to write a good article. It is becoming increasingly likely that all the material you contributed will be deleted for breach of WP:NPOV. You really need to try a lot harder to make an encyclopedia article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Refs
Hi, I notice that you use this style of reference:  This is purely my opinion but I wonder if you just imitated what you saw elsewhere and thought it the norm. It is not. Most people try to use mnemonic refs like  that help you remember what you are citing. (Others may argue that it may help you with citing what you think you remember and an obscure ref means you have to check!). I'm not suggesting that you change anything already done or indeed if you actually prefer this style that you should stop. Just because wp:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough! See also WP:CITESTYLE, especially wp:CITEVAR. By the way, you only need to use quote marks in the ref if it has embedded spaces or other special characters. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

COI
Do you have an association with Ian Fletcher and Spencer Morrison? Have you edited under the names Branog and/or Ianfletcher? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Permission
You don't need my permission to do anything, or anyone else's for that matter. You do have to be careful of edit-warring in the article. If there is a difference of opinion, it needs to be ironed out by discussion at the talk page. Revert/revert/revert wars can get all concerned blocked. See also wp:BRD.

On the Tariff page, the important question is not whether the authors you cite are professional economists (though it helps!) but more importantly whether they are wp:reliable sources for the topic. A doctor of philosophy is not a competent authority on medical practice, for example. Politicians or those closely associated with a political ideology almost never qualify, because they are not not neutral. You should expect to have to demonstrate their status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Branog#Suspected_sockpuppets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)