NotQualified

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Tacklebox (July 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Theroadislong were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Tacklebox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, NotQualified! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Douglas Gore has been accepted

Stephen Douglas Gore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Tacklebox

Hello, NotQualified. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Tacklebox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Tacklebox

Hello, NotQualified. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Tacklebox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Android Studio

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Android Studio, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pitt also dated Shalane McCall when he was 24 and she was 15 who co-starred with him on the show Dallas. When asked about his favourite sex scene in W magazine's Best Performances issue, Pitt said 'it would have been in the show Dallas [with McCall]. I had to roll around in the hay in a barn. I don't think I had a line. I was just rolling and frolicking.'

is the above fair to be added to Pitt's page? are the sources good? NotQualified (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please compare your sources to the table at WP:RSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

alright just did, they arent good so i'll have to find others if this is true. thanks NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Formatting references

I noticed that you tend to add bare URLs as references. You might find https://citer.toolforge.org/ helpful; you just enter the URL, ISBN, or DOI, and it will format a wikipedia-style reference for you. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you NotQualified (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore

Hi. I started a discussion about an article that you wrote. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you, i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff. beyond that is everything okay? NotQualified (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of an attack page

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

what why? NotQualified (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

i definitely did not 'attack' or 'threaten', and 'disparage'? i sourced everything i said which can be fiund in the articles, i didnt add my opinions NotQualified (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ted Cruz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. 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) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages

I replied to you on my Talk page, where you asked me a question. Did you receive an email alerting you that I had replied there? Or is it necessary to reply on your Talk page for you to receive an email alerting you? Thanks.

In case you were not alerted, this is what I wrote:

you deleted my lincoln edits and i just want clarification if the info itself is afoul or something else NotQualified (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which article? I don't see it in Abraham Lincoln. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

sorry shouldve been more clear, http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Lincoln NotQualified (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not include the four footnotes. I don't understand how they got there.Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

those are references for a brad pitt edit i made months ago??? NotQualified (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am confused. First of all, I did not receive an email telling me that you had replied on your Talk page; I checked myself. Can you explain when emails are sent and when they are not?

Second, is there a connection between your brad pitt edits and your lincoln edits? I've never visited Brad Pitt's Wikipedia page, and I still don't know what lincoln edits you referred to. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

when i opened your message i received four random links to my brad pitt edit and you mentioned four footnotes, i was deeply confused myself and im not really sure whats going on right now NotQualified (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NotQualified, your edit to Assassination of Abraham Lincoln was removed by Shearonink, not Maurice Magnus. Shearonik explained why in the edit summary: Not an improvement for the lead section/in infobox attack on Grant didn't fail - it never happened/sentence in lead was too long,had too many clauses. Also, if you want to notify another editor when making a comment, use WP:PING. Schazjmd (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

i mustve clicked on the wrong user profile then? i read that summary but it wasnt clear enough if the info as a whole was wrong or just wrongly placed NotQualified (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The automated portion of the edit summary explains that Shearonink was restoring the version by Maurice Magnus. Anyway, when you've been reverted, the best thing to do is start a discussion on the talk page to get input from other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political capital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bush.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Great Replacement. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 08:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

you dismissed the inclusion of a critical piece of info on the grounds of your only personal views being "the sort of people who believe in that stuff would find another excuse for xenophobic conspiracy theories". it frankly does not matter how deplorable a view is, and i feel the Russell's teapot quota has been fulfilled where it was up to you to re-clarify your stance rather than say i failed to assume good faith. again, it appeared you rejected the inclusion of critical info on the grounds you didnt like it. maybe i interpreted wrong, in which case apologies. but a conspiracy theory about being demographically replaced not including figures relevant to that seems, well... biased... sorry if my tone is harsh, just sorta tired. i think we can talk there and re-clarify stances as we're both acting in good faith however. NotQualified (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You are confused. I haven't even posted in that thread. I am referring to your responses to User:Hob Galding. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Hob Gadling Doug Weller talk 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually prefer it when I am mispeled, since that means I am not summoned to places where I do not need to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol Masterhatch (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

apologies, i was confused sorry! NotQualified (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Great Replacement, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

my source was fine https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. review the telegraph yourself. the content discussed in which is literally the allegations in detail, with only a semantic difference. i would like if you didnt mind to edit what i wrote in Peter Mandelson as i feel i didnt provide enough detail from the article to make what i said not sound like a non-sequitur. also, how does https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources operate when a reliable source sources an unreliable source, do i take it as good and assume they fact-checked the claim or? NotQualified (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Again you seem confused and I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed text that said "a clear reference to the plantations of Ireland under British rule which still scars the Irish psyche." with no citation. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

oh, i feel like this falls under common sense but fair enough...? NotQualified (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi NotQualified! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Great Replacement that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Your unsourced text was clearly not a minor edit by our definition. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

was unaware of just minor typos only, appreciated NotQualified (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to Peter Mandelson was in part unsourced/part OR

Here[1] you wrote: "In 2013, Mandelson told the Blairite think-tank Progress: ‘In 2004, as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them.’ This was the first ever admission from a high-ranking Labour member that Labour intentionally dismantled immigration control in order to replace working class voters who had turned to the Tory party. This example is often used as proof of a wider Great Replacement Theory across Europe by right-wing groups." The first sentence after the quote is original research interpreting the quote, the second is of course unsourced. This is yet another example of your editing about this issue. I'm going to give you a contentious topics alerts for post 1992 American Politics as you don't seem to have received one, although the article itself mentions it. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

i will look into this. thank you. about 1992 american politics, mandelson is a british politican so i am unsure why this affects american politics. please clarify. NotQualified (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Of courses, but the purpose of your edit was to talk about the replacement conspiracy theory. and that is under sanction. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

the last edits i made related to post 1992 amercian politics was to obama adding he attended jury duty? prior i believe was mentioning obamomics is a portmanteau ages ago. are you referring to british politics? NotQualified (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

i will get solid sources. i feel the CT alert is overkill, especially as ive shown you personally sources i had but didnt know if were reliable, i definitely did jump the gun in writing and i shouldve just linked the source in the article, even if unreliable, as where i received the info but again, thank you. for other wikipedians, i try to follow the rules and if i screw up it's never malice. apologies and thanks.NotQualified (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it's standard, everyone who edits in the area should have one unless they've been involved in a WP:AE discussion or given someone else one. And your focus is mainly on one issue within the topic area, you should have had one earlier. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

im confused, what exactly is the CT alert for? NotQualified (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You edited Great Replacement and that's covered by the alert area. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

CT alert for post-1992 American politics

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

thanks NotQualified (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are covered by contentious articles

We enforce our policies and guidelines more strictly in CT pages. You are showing a lack of good faith there and some might see it as bludgeoning as well. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

lack of good faith??? i started a 5 day long consensus gathering on WP:SYNTH just to confirm that sources do not have to have the article's name in verbatim to be valid after you said as such and that id be banned for not complying and now youre arguing im bludgeoning?? the people on WP:SYNTH are aware of the context, they still disagreed. let it go and stop this hounding. i am not acting in bad faith, i have listened to your concerns. NotQualified (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hounding is a serious charge. I’ve had that art on my watchlist long before you came along. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

i am not talking about 'hounding' as in a wikipedia rule. just informally. do not worry i am not accusing you of that. was unfamiliar it was wikipedia terminology NotQualified (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Formal warning for BLP violations

Hi NotQualified. After verifying a recent thread opened at the BLP noticeboard about an edit to Gordon Brown, I arrived at your talk page to check if you were aware of the fact biographies of living people are under our contentious topics system. Not only you should be aware of that, but I noticed that this is not the first time you've been warned for problematic edits in the area. For that reason, I'm giving you a formal warning, which I'll be logging under CT/BLP. Be more careful in the future. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

hey! yeah i thought the telegraph was a respected source according to the wikipedia policy so i included it and made a talk page notice about the inclusion. wasnt trying to cause annoyance or anything! NotQualified (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

> which I'll be logging under CT/BLP

whats that mean NotQualified (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"but I noticed that this is not the first time you've been warned for problematic edits in the area."

the mandelson debacle? trust me this has been a dogfight for months that ive lost energy in it. if i recall in that instance the source was there but i didnt add it (cant recall why) / forgot to. it was a daily mail opinion piece which was responded to in the telegraph. that was just an accident. NotQualified (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

> Be more careful in the future.

for anyone reading this, i sourced an opinion piece in the telegraph that asserts that a government official informed the bbc that the brown administration had blocked investigations into child rape. while the claim may be genuine (and i guess is being investigated by wikipedians), it was too "bold" to add without first gathering consensus via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My logging of my warning to you (here is the diff) means that another misstep is likely to result in sanctions (such as a topic ban or a full on block). And by "repeated incidents", I also mean this draft, which was eventually deleted as an attack page. Our policy on biographies of living people is one of our most important ones, and one I take very seriously. If you continue to show an inability to follow that policy, you will eventually be blocked. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"another misstep" right hold on what occurred was a potential breach here, not an outright definitive one. i sourced but the source is being doubted. your diff doesnt reflect the potential-ness, it makes it out that i definitely did something wrong.

> which was eventually deleted as an attack page

oh right gore, ages ago. yeah that was my first brush up with BLP. the claims there were all sourced and i hardly have a motive to smear some random corpse butcher. if i recall he just wasnt noteworthy of an article and i couldve written it more "impartially", however it's not my fault the verbatim of the sources themselves were gruesome due to the nature of his crimes... still i learnt from that, then i accidentally didnt add my source one time, and now im being investigated a year plus later into a potential misstep into a claim that was 100 percent made by the man in question and that was sourced by a respected source citing the BBC as being knowledgeable in it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM_uk and i even made a talk page to discuss if it was cool as i added it. look man, im not an avid or intentional rule breaker and a full on block for another "misstep" would be, well, excessive. NotQualified (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

> one I take very seriously

do not conflate this into being rash about judgements. what was written is being investigated, and it was not some baseless slander but a genuine claim from a government official on the bbc radio. NotQualified (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced material in BLP again

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tommy Robinson (activist), you may be blocked from editing. Given you have already been warned about this twice before and received a formal warning for BLP violations, I recommend you take this warning seriously regarding unsourced content in BLP. Thanks CNC (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry what are you referring to here? what did i poorly source in robinson? NotQualified (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit. While you don't need citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE, it does need to be verified in the body, which it is not. You should also be aware there have been past discussions to gain consensus over the content in the first sentence; so making these changes without first gaining consensus, on such a contentious topic, is ill advised. CNC (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

right okay hold on then this is a different matter, it isnt that im wrong but i need consensus. i was "too bold".

on a matter of what i wrote and about "it does need to be verified in the body":

youre taking me up on this by saying "journalist"? thats a BLP violation? so if you release multiple documentaries on a news topic, youre not a journalist? what "organisation" is an authority on what a journalist even is, thats a genuine question, who do i have to cite in order to refer to someone as a journalist? i think having in his article that he has produced multiple documentaries is in itself proof it is verified in the body, if not what is? NotQualified (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No this isn't a different matter, I was simply trying to provide you some additional context. I see that only appears to be a distraction though so ignore. "who do i have to cite in order to refer to someone as a journalist?" You cite a reliable source, nothing else, not your own interpretation, nor your own original research. CNC (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

and that formal warning was given because the telegraph wasnt deemed a good enough source in quoting a crown prosecutor, what i wrote was factually true, nazir afzal did say what he said about brown's home office. i disagree with the assertion that it was even a valid BLP violation, what i wrote was objectively true and sourced from an article that sourced a BBC radio interview NotQualified (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

mind you, the telegraph is deemed a valid wikipedia source and i have very choice words to the editor who awarded me said violation. i have detailed them in my response for all to see, i do not think it is at all valid. NotQualified (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I actually thought the warning over the Gordon Brown incident was incredibly harsh, however it's beside the point and this isn't about that. If you have been formally warned for BLP violations you should be extremely careful in that contentious topic area to avoid being blocked. Your edit to the Robinson page did not suggest you were being cautious at all. CNC (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

i added "journalist" to an article about a man who has released multiple documentaries. unless theres an official definition on what a journalist is that wikipedia operates under and i was in violation of it, i would argue it is beyond self-evident and self-confirming that someone who does journalism is a journalist. do you want me to make a talk page on this NotQualified (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

> I'll be honest, I actually thought the warning over the Gordon Brown incident was incredibly harsh

thank you for your sympathy, i greatly appreciate it. NotQualified (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I should point out that despite thinking the warning was incredibly harsh at the time, it now seems entirely appropriate based on your inability to understand WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. CNC (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

... this really just goes back to who is a "reliable source" on who qualifies to be a journalist. another journalist...? if you want me to operate under finding a single article that refers to him as a "journalist" under the WP verified sources that can be worked with, sure.

what about his "documentaries", in your view should someone who makes documentaries be called a "documentarian" or should it be written he is a person who has made documentaries but he does not qualify as a documentarian despite producing documentaries because no one in WP verified referred to him as such. i have opened a talk page into tommy about his "documentaries", not specifically this but more just listing them NotQualified (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If you read the article on WP:RS, you will understand what is considered a reliable source. There are numerous examples at WP:RSP and sources are regularly discussed at WP:RSN. In ssummary, it's the WP community that decides whether a source is reliable or not, which would therefore determine if someone is described as a journalist or not. I'm otherwise not here to discuss edits you want to make on the Robinson page, this discussion is about adding unsourced material to BLP, and you've already started a discussion about this on the appropriate talk page. CNC (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

> If you read the article on WP:RS

i have read this a year ago in a debacle about mandelson, i know wikipedia has a list of sources.

"it's the WP community that decides whether a source is reliable or not, which would therefore determine if someone is described as a journalist or not."

right so i need to find a source that refers to him as a journalist that has due weight, i cant infer he is a journalist from the sources referring to his work as documentaries. this is heightened due to his controversial nature and locked page.

> "adding unsourced material to BLP"

for future editors, i added in verbatim "journalist" (nothing else) to his opening sentences on the grounds he has produced multiple documentaries detailed in his body. NotQualified (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on MOS:OPENPARABIO, you would need multiple sources referring to Robinson as a journalist, per "reflect the balance of reliable sources", in order for it to be WP:DUE and to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE, as his other descriptions in the first sentence are covered by multiple reliable sources. So to clarify, a single reliable source referencing Robinson as a journalist would not be due nor balanced. Describing Robinson as a journalist, because he has produced documentaries, is otherwise not verbatim. CNC (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

i see, thanks for this analysis CNC :) NotQualified (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello NotQualified! Your additions to Oldham Council 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 Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 03:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

right, is this due to the huge block quotes? for the stuff i took from the source i tried changing a couple words but seemingly thats not enough, this was in response to me being told i didnt properly represent the views of the sources so this time i stayed extremely close to what was said and now im being told i was too close NotQualified (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The block quotes were a problem but they weren't the biggest problem. You copied and pasted directly from the source, at most you changed a couple of the words. You've admitted it yourself. when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources. Even when you said, 'vitrually copy paste'. emphasis on 'virtually'. i have changed wording somewhat except for quotes. i was previously told i didnt properly represent sources so i stayed extremely close to what sources said, that's close paraphrasing which is still a copyright violation. You have to put what the source said in your own words, not theirs. — The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

okay fair enough, i thought that was sufficient and was wrong. it wont happen again. thank you :) NotQualified (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Crybaby

. Adolfi86uijh (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

adolf?!?! NotQualified (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding North Korean involvement in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Rc2barrington (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Please remember that WP:AGF is Wikipedia policy. Accusing other editors of "bad faith" edits isn't in keeping with that policy. You need to restrict your comment to content, not to other editors or your perception of their actions. You're editing in a contentious content area, it's important to keep in mind that your edits will be subject to more scrutiny than in less contentious areas. It's important to stay within the lines. Guettarda (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also say you're over the three-revert rule on that article. Have a look at your edits. If you agree with me that you've made more than three reverts, I recommend self-reverting and stepping away from the article for a bit. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

my final two reverts dont qualify:

Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. NotQualified (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't obvious vandalism. Having been a Wikipedia admin for 19 years, I can tell you that this isn't "obvious vandalism". The only problematic language is "far right activist", and that because it's unsourced. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

if they sourced it, i wouldnt have reverted it. his page had to be raised in protection due to violations and i see original research of an egregious claim being added to the lede, of course im reverting, and that doesnt add to three revert. im only on one. NotQualified (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• just because i wouldnt revert it doesnt mean it was in accordance with edit war rules anyways on their behalf. get consensus. NotQualified (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

nope, not respecting this. they literally listed nazis and then said a comedian was among their ranks, did not cite their sources for egregious claims of tony being a far right racist, violated edit warring rules, expressing desire to see them fired?

i have listed a set of rules this individual has violated. do not accuse me of incorrectly identifying bad faith, they have been reported and should be dealt with swiftly. NotQualified (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

an editor with over 10000 contributions is not accidentally doing this, especially as the page had to be raised due to recurring vandalism a minute before their edits NotQualified (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

they literally listed nazis and then said a comedian was among their ranks

Yeah, that's trivially easy to source. The issue is saying it in Wikipedia's voice versus attributing it. Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

it's [[WP:NOR]], they shouldnt write absurd claims on a BLP or its talk page. if they were a new editor, id expect they were not familiar with the rules. this person has 10000+ edits. seriously? far right racist in the lede without a source while there is a neutrality warning tag and a talk page to discuss for consensus. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox error on Robert Reich fixed

I fixed the error you accidentally added to the infobox on Robert Reich's article for you :D

I've been looking through your contributions, and a bit of friendly advice from someone who's done something similar to what you're currently doing: don't step into contentious topics just yet, especially ones that are still developing. Yes, I'm referring to the NK troops in Russia. This isn't me having a go at you, I'm just saying maybe just leave the issue until sources have confirmed the purpose and such. The article is extended-protected, so there's very little chance of vandalism. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

i added things into the infobox after someone else changed the infobox already to include NK, i thought consensus was reached. thanks btw NotQualified (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)