User talk:Bmk812

September 2017

Hello. Your recent edit to La Porte, Indiana appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at La Porte, Indiana. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Before a person can be listed on a notable person's list, you have to prove they are notable (and that they have a connection with the subject of the article containing the list.) There is nothing inherently notable about inventing something, being an industrialist or dying, which is all the single reference you added shows. The only way to show the vast majority of people are notable is to create their biography first, then add them to the list. See the previous message for more details. John from Idegon (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to La Lumiere School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A scan of an advertising brochure is neither reliable or published, both of which are requirements for sourcing. Even if your scan could be authenticated, we have no interest in what the school says about itself. John from Idegon (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page

You have a very mistaken notion of how Wikipedia works. Let me ask you something. When you started your first job, did you walk into work and start telling the people who worked there for many years how to do their jobs? Perhaps you did, but if you did I'm reasonably certain you got fired in very short order. We have a policy here called assume good faith. That means that just as I assumed you're trying to improve the encyclopedia with your additions, you need to assume that in the 6 years I've been doing this, making nearly 75,000 edits to this encyclopedia that I probably know how to do it just a bit better than you. If someone reverts a change you've made and provides a reason, you need to assume that either they are correct or there is a misunderstanding. In either case, it is on you, the one who wants to make the change to determine what is needed in order to make the change you want. This is a collaborative project, and the policies, guidelines and traditions are complicated. Most any editor will be glad to help you, as long as you understand that your additions have to comply with policy and guidelines. What won't get you by here is acting like you have all the answers. You don't. If you want help, ask. If you wish to continue acting like you are, someone will be happy to show you the door. Hope that clarifies the issue of edit warring. Just because you add a citation to what you've done does not automatically mean that what you want to add can stay. I've told you above what you need to do in order for your additions to be acceptable. If you think I'm wrong, first that would be a mistake, because experience is the best teacher for almost anything, but you still can start a discussion on the articles' talk pages to try to gain consensus for inclusion. That's the proper way to handle a new addition you've made being reverted. See WP:BRD. To not do so and just put it back is what edit warring really is. Try taking my advice tho, as in these two cases you haven't got a basis for an argument to include the content you want. Your source on Farley is unacceptable; and the only way to show a person is notable is to create their bio. Didn't you notice that the name you were adding in La Porte was the only one that was red? John from Idegon (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You are arrogant. Bmk812 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)