User talk:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck

February 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Yasmine Taeb, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation
This is incorrect. The updates are properly cited VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the main problem (although it is still a problem; the YouTube video is not an acceptable source, see the perennial sources entry). The main problem is your liberal use of primary sources to reach a conclusion not supported by any of the sources (WP:SYNTH), such as the use of board minutes (it's not even clear which ones you're citing) to claim Taeb is not engaged with the board. Additionally, the conclusions that are cited are given undue weight; for example you have not cited any secondary sources to show that the BDS issue deserves its own section. Finally, all your sources are bare URLs; these are susceptible to linkrot and should be avoided. – Teratix ₵ 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionnaire
The link provided is directly from the democratic socialists of america’s Website. VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. So that is not a secondary source, nor an independent one, nor a reliable one. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have looked at all the edits to the article and have reverted to an earlier version. Your edits did not improve the writing, the layout, and the tone of the article. In addition, you added sometimes strange content, sometimes inappropriate content, verified by either unreliable sources, websites, or primary sources. None of this will do. And on top of it all, you are clearly trying to place the person in a negative light. I am giving you the opportunity to a. acquaint yourself with our policies; b. look at more Wikipedia articles (look for Good Articles and Featured Articles) that will indicate to you what good, neutral articles are; c. learn to edit neutrally. If you continue as you did before, you will be blocked for partisan editing of BLPs with unreliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Yasmine Taeb. Your editing of a political BLP using piss-poor sources is, by now, just vandalism. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Headline
The source literally is headlined “NEW RESIDENT OF FALLS CHURCH CITY” VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. And what about this, https://propertysearch.arlingtonva.us/Home/Sales?lrsn=28376 ? Is that a secondary source? And what is this, https://bluevirginia.us/2019/01/virginia-4q18-fundraising-numbers-start-coming-in, but a blog? And why do you use this to point to some person named Smith? What's the motive? And what kind of reference is this, https://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty/bills ? And why are you resorting to a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSXQ-Ogy3Y) to make a point about the person whose intent seems to be to blackball her? If I find that you added this while I was typing this up, I will revert and report you. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * They are deleted. I took them out. Why did you revert the updated citations that clearly comply with the requirements VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. And the purpose of our edits is still quite clear. Why, pray tell, are you pointing out that (allegedly) someone has a donor who is married to a Goldman Sachs person? Don't you think that's an awful lot like Trump dumping on McCabe cause his wife ran as a Democrat? I do. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Video
That is actual video from an ACTUAL debate that from the democratic primary where she was running VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed you to WP:RS. I reminded you that we use secondary sources here. You are either too obstinate to play by the rules or too ignorant of what an encyclopedia is. And yet you keep on keeping on. Hold on--let me drop an edit warring template here too. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Headline
You keep reverting an edit that is a literal headline from the news article. You are the one who is clearly trying to bias the article VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bias" is not a verb. I did not revert that one single edit; I reverted all the other ones. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Acroterion   (talk)   04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)