User talk:CitationKneaded

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CitationKneaded. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing requirements on Wikipedia

I have noticed that in a number of articles, you have inserted material and claims without citing any reliable sources for that material. Wikipedia is not a platform for sharing your personal opinions, it is a platform for writing a free-content Internet encyclopedia based upon verifiable information from published reliable sources. We are writing from a neutral point of view and with due weight placed upon the highest-quality, mainstream reliable sources. I suggest that you take some time to learn about Wikipedia policies for sourcing and content, and study the five pillars of editing the encyclopedia, so that your future contributions are suitable for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then you have my apologies - I am still a relatively new user on Wikipedia, learning the way things are done here & editing in a language that is not native to me. If you would be so kind as direct me to the pages where you think I may have made such oversights, I will do my best to correct them. CitationKneaded (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this edit, where you insert the assertion that anti-Trump protests are "domestic terrorism." That would require at least one source (and, more likely, a number of sources creating a clear consensus of reliable sources) which directly supports the statement that the protests involve "domestic terrorism." As there were no sources cited, I removed it. Such an addition is likely to be contentious; I suggest that you open a discussion on the article talk page if you believe sufficient sourcing for such a statement exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, 1) I specifically put in "not all" in the little "explain your edit bar". 2) I was specifically talking about death threats against electors (which neither of us appears to disagree on being a thing that happened - although technically one could also categorize the assassination attempt in there) falling under the FBI's legal definition of terrorism, which I think is appropriate, since we are talking about a US election, & they are the primary federal agency to deal w/ those matters.

""Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

These acts are actually in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters ^[1] (I used to study Criminology in college, & then anti-terrorism when I worked U.S. military intel). Moreover, the threats or attempts at assassinating members of the government, whether the electors, or the (then) presidential nominees - specifically with the intent to coerce a particular political outcome (these are not random acts - this distinction is very important) - likely any government, not just the American one, would define as "terrorism".

P.S. But you're right that the topic is a contentious one, & this is an important discussion to be had about what does & does not qualify under the legal definition, as such things influence our cultural perceptions, & vice-versa. CitationKneaded (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We aren't here to share our personal opinions of "what does and does not qualify under the legal definition." Neither your personal opinion nor mine is relevant; rather, what reliable sources say is relevant. There would need to be a fairly broad consensus of reliable sources that the protests constitute "domestic terrorism" before we could include such a category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's late where I am & I was making a more general statement. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the FBI is regarded as one of the most authoritative sources on terrorism, considering they have an entire dept. that deals with that sort of thing. But yes, I see where you're coming from.

References

^ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Protests against Donald Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are new on Wikipedia, so I will politely ask that you self-revert and discuss your contentious addition on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but why do you keep getting on my case about citing things already cited in the main article page when I list them in the sidebar? Is there some obscure rule I'm not aware of? It seems redundant (& a waste of my time) to me. The other things listed in the sidebar don't seem to require their own unique citations, & yet you only seem to go after me when I try to make the list complete for ease of reference. This seems confusing & unfair from my POv. I would like to hear you explain your side of why you are doing this. CitationKneaded (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in Wikipedia is based on consensus; I do not believe there is a consensus that it is fair to describe "death threats" and "attempted murder" as "protest tactics" when there is no evidence presented that they represent more than the tiniest fringe. There were, no doubt, many death threats leveled against Barack Obama during the Tea Party protests, but our article on the Tea Party protests rightfully does not include them as "protest tactics" in the infobox, because they did not represent more than the tiniest fringe of Obama opponents. It places undue weight on the actions of that tiny fringe, whether that fringe is against Obama or Trump. Regardless, when an edit or addition is challenged, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to add the material to the article to open a discussion on the article talk page and create a consensus that their addition is appropriate — please see the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this works. Your bold addition of material has been challenged, and you should now discuss why you believe your additions are appropriate, properly weighted and balanced. The place to open that discussion is Talk:Protests against Donald Trump. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Dismissal of James Comey for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - Mr X 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to improve the article by drawing attention to unsubstantiated & unverified conspiracy theories being stated as "fact", which would lead readers looking to research the topic to misleading conclusions. If I drifted off-topic a bit, I apologize - my disability from a traumatic brain injury incurred in the line of duty makes it difficult for me to stay focused. CitationKneaded (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. - Mr X 22:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know the wiki is a community effort, & I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me about it. CitationKneaded (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your recent editing history at June 2017 London attacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wes Wolf ^Talk 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly told you to cease & desist from contacting me on Wikipedia. Since you seem to have difficulty comprehending this simple request, I will have to take necessary action accordingly. I do not want you to talk to me.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a report made against you at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wes Wolf ^Talk 05:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Dear Mister @CitationKneaded: If you have some time, please visit Kundby case. I wrote an article about one of the largest terrorist plots in Danish history. A girl converted to islam and tried to blow up two schools. It is nominated for deletion and you might be interested in joining the debate? You seem to have a lot of experticise on this subject and I think your arguments might have a positive influence on the decision process.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I have rephrased it. Is this considered suitable for Wikipedia? Kind regards.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the guideline:

Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.

- Mr X 12:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

[1]