User talk:Wecarlisle

Welcome!

Hello, Wecarlisle, 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

You may also want to take 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutrality^talk 01:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016 page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Please don't replace the summary table until there's clear consensus for restoration. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: if it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. This article is covered under BLP Discretionary sanctions and American Politics Discretionary Sanctions. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi, I hope you're doing well today. I see that you have keen interest in providing content to Wikipedia articles, and of interest to me is your input to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. You may notice that a lot of your content is being reverted / removed. I think that is generally because the content is coming from unreliable sources.

If there's not a reliable source, then it's entirely possible that it's not been thoroughly fact-checked. I don't know if you added the info, but an example is Jennifer Murphy, who was added to the article using an unreliable source. She absolutely was not an accuser and was quite upset that she had been identified as one. She had been kissed by Trump, but had no issue with it. And, if the mainstream media isn't picking up a story, it speaks to the importance or lack of importance (not always, there's some stuff that they don't pick up that would be good - but it is a rule of thumb). Well, actually you might be able to speak to that better than me, based upon the articles that you contribute to.

Also, there is keen attention that we're receiving on POV, reliable sources, etc. issues. There have been a number of attempts to remove sections from the article or have it deleted entirely. That is why we're being hypervigilant on this article.

Anyway, I thought I'd drop by the list of reliable sources that we've identified - and the ones we're choosing not to use for this article - some of them because of POV concerns (Politico and Huffington Post come to mind). This may be a helpful guide for other articles that you contribute to.

Use:

• Atlantic - RS
• Business Insider - RS
• CNN, CNN Money - RS
• Deseret News - RS
• Fox News - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• Guardian - RS
• Houston Public Media
• Los Angeles Times - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• NPR - RS, preferred from previous discussion
• Network news: ABC, CBS, NBC - RS
• New York Daily News - RS
• New York Magazine - RS
• New York Times - RS
• Newsweek - RS
• NPR - RS
• Palm Beach Post - RS
• People - RS
• Rolling Stone - RS
• Slate - RS
• Time - RS
• Variety - RS
• VOX - RS
• Washington Post - RS

Don't use or find a better source, based on RSN

• Daily Beast - RS, but speculative opinion pieces
• DailyMail - not RS
• Donald J. Trump campaign site - better to get a secondary source.In cases where Trump's responses to specific allegations are present on his campaign site but not (within a reasonable time frame) covered in RS, we include his response noting that it came from the campaign site (added)
• Huffington Post - RS, better to find another source
• Independent - not RS
• International Business Times - not clearly RS, better to find another source (added)
• LawNews - not RS per RSN in this post (added)
• Politico - RS, but better to find another source
• Anything else not on the "use" list unless it's a known reliable source (search noticeboard)

I know it's long-winded!!!! But, I hope that some of this is helpful for you. Please feel free to ask questions on the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page or my user talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Per your recent edit, please pay attention to the list provided by CaroleHenson above. Also, please don't mark an edit as "minor" if you add content. "Minor" is for spelling errors and the like. Funcrunch (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Trump content

Hello. Re this edit, you could have answered the "for some reason" by looking at the article's talk page. Or, failing to see the RfC there, simply starting a thread there to ask why the content was removed. This is the best approach for any article in a highly controversial area, and even more critical in an article under the ArbCom U.S. politics remedies stated at the top of the article's talk page. Happy editing! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)