User talk:1scamblocker1

Vandalism at Malcolm Nance

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Malcolm Nance. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not vandalism, that page makes claims that no aren't backed by valid sources.

"Wikipedia policy cannot be a defense for tacitly allowing shameless self-promotion to pass as factual sourcing."

The majority of the page he is the source. 1scamblocker1 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Schooled in Arabic, he is active in the field of national security policy particularly, in anti- and counter-terrorism intelligence, terrorist strategy and tactics, torture and counter-ideology in combating Islamic extremism."

There's not even a sourced cite stating he was schooled in Arabic. 1scamblocker1 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have analyzed your deletions and fixed two issues. One was trivia (a dog?), and the "Arabic" matter is now mentioned in the body. It is sourced. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It stated his profile picture is that of a NAFO dog. It isn't, which is clearly apparent by looking at his twitter page. This whole page is self promotion all based off articles where he is the source. I don't see why that is difficult to see. 1scamblocker1 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This also means you undid my deletions and told me "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" without even reviewing the changes to begin with. 1scamblocker1 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your major deletions were simply wrong and it was easier to quickly revert all your quickly-growing number of edits as I suspected the minor ones were likely also based on a faulty understanding of our policies. We primarily use secondary RS to develop content, and when he is quoted in such sources, we use that content here. We are even allowed to use primary sources with some caveats. If it is not "unduly self-serving", we can use what he has written on his own website or in one of his books. Those are primary sources. You deleted content that came from major news sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]