User talk:Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D

Welcome!
Hello, Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D, 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 The Anatomy of a School Shooting has 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) 04:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your editing
I know you haven't been on Wikipedia long, and some of the way we do things here may seem strange at first or you might not agree with them. I'm reaching out in good faith to suggest that some of your actions have been aggressive and nonconstructive.

First of all, it doesn't help to be uncivil and leaving edit summaries such as "REWROTE THIS FANTASTICALLY POORLY WRITTEN ADVERTISEMENT OF A SECTION TO BE VAGUELY ACCEPTABLE. SERIOUSLY, WHO IN THE FUCK WROTE THIS SHIT?" "WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU CAPITALIZE THE WORD 'TRAILER'" and "you fucking nincompoop." There's no need for all-caps typing or that kind of language. We try to be civil and collegial here.

Second, Wikipedia is not a source of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. If Gunn were a scientist, his views on science would have a place in his article. But he is not, and his opinion about topics outside that for which he is known are non-notable. Think about it: Everyone has opinions about everything. Do we include Einstein's opinions about baseball? Or Sarah Palin's opinions on filmmaking?

Finally, when you're reverted, the protocol, per WP:BRD, is not to edit-war but to take your concerns to the talk page. If you can't find satisfaction there, you can ask for third-party mediation or take other steps, such as an WP:RfC or arbitration. In the interest of working constructively, I ask you to take your concerns to Talk:James Gunn (filmmaker). --Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, but there are plenty of other non-scientist celebrities who are noted for science enthusiasm and also advocating against pseudoscientific (such as antivaxx things) whose pages show this. Otherwise, say, Jenny McCarthy's antivaxx advocacy wouldn't be mentioned on her page given that she is not a scientist. Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jenny McCarthy is in the news because of her anti-vax stance, and that has become part of her notability. James Gunn is not in the news for this, and we don't include subjects' opinions on every cherry-picked topic.


 * You have continued to violate WP:BRD, which says that after you were first reverted, you go to the article's talk page to try to generate consensus from fellow editors for your proposed addition. Rather than do that, you are slow-motion edit-warring. If you continue to simply refuse to follow Wikipedia rules and procedures, and reinsert this WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAPBOX edit, I will be forced to ask for admin intervention to WP:BAN you editing that page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is as at the very least relevant as Category:Science fiction fans. There are plenty of other pages detailing celebrities' criticism of anti-vax or their enthusiasm for science. --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like what pages? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Science fiction fans --Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues at Phil Mason
Hello. I wanted to explain why I reverted you edit to Phil Mason. A self-published video on YouTube is sometimes allowable as a source on Wikipedia, but per WP:BLPSELFPUB, it would have to make no claims about a third party. This obvious did. You also labeled Mason as a conspiracy theorist, which is something that would have to be done by a secondary reliable source, such as professional journalist in a newspaper article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo
Brustopher (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fin Tutuola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)