User talk:Jacobbs2090322
Welcome
[edit]
|
June 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Quora is in no way what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. NeilN talk to me 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello NeilN. the article is still being edited. 10 minutes have not even ended and your throwing citation to a reliable source my way and i was typing. let me complete the edits then you can come up with an issue Jacob 17:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Let me be clear. Add the info again without adding proper sourcing at the same time and I will block you. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN thanks for your resolve. i will not add info again without sourcing. i hope we can all contribute by making Wikipedia, free, neutral and credible. i appreciate the oversight and working hard to be a better editor. let me know any other thing that your uncomfortable with? Jacob 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- What, exactly is your source for "At the time, the world's youngest"? --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- My source is forbes and the claim is about forbes. if you use the word forbes surely isn't the source forbes?. and my wording is forbes. i have added citations of all articles from 2011. please check Forbes 30 Under 30 and all citations added on the statement. The reason i brought up the issue of typing without adding citations in the previous response was because another user had reversed the edits and because of computer typing errors i didn't publish the same on time. Jacob 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTH. I want to know what source explicitly said "At the time, the world's youngest". Link please. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The specific reason for adding "At the time, the world's youngest" was based on WP:SS based on the quora citation added. The quora article itself was an independently stated statement with clear independent & notable citations about the source and then the by year 2015 because the list is annual. That combined with the rest of the statement, including citation makes sense Jacob 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTH. I want to know what source explicitly said "At the time, the world's youngest". Link please. --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- My source is forbes and the claim is about forbes. if you use the word forbes surely isn't the source forbes?. and my wording is forbes. i have added citations of all articles from 2011. please check Forbes 30 Under 30 and all citations added on the statement. The reason i brought up the issue of typing without adding citations in the previous response was because another user had reversed the edits and because of computer typing errors i didn't publish the same on time. Jacob 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- What, exactly is your source for "At the time, the world's youngest"? --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN thanks for your resolve. i will not add info again without sourcing. i hope we can all contribute by making Wikipedia, free, neutral and credible. i appreciate the oversight and working hard to be a better editor. let me know any other thing that your uncomfortable with? Jacob 17:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. NeilN talk to me 17:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN. I appreciate your oversight but i think its does not meet WP:NOV. you have purposely reversed the edit to prevent me from further edits when your argument lacks standing. Haven't i clearly explained how we arrived at each of the actions to you and you have no counter arguments. Why go to noticeboard or seek dispute resolution when there is no issue. so whats the issue with the statement that makes you personally have a problem with. please can you just give me a reason and i will rest my case about this without any argument. I have validly sourced the statement, justified my edits all the way, and the claims are independently notable and verifiable. But your the only one who wants me to go to noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Surely is that really neutral for wikipedia, a platform that thrives on the grounds of freedom and neutrality. Jacob 17:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV has "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Quora (for the fifth time) is not a reliable source. And why are you deleting my posts here? [1] [2] I'm assuming you've read the warnings. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN but there are other sources that are a fair representation and not proportionately biased about the very specific issue. Wouldn't it be proper, neutral and fair that you ask me to provide a better source rather than revocable shut me out because of an unreliable source. That specific reason why i brought up WP:NPOV because your actions were hasty, inconsiderate and impatient when there are other valid sources considering the fact that i have been justifying my edit actions all the way. I understand that because your a WP:ADMIN you can find justification for any of your actions against valid editorial activity of others, but who says that you must make conclusive and subjective actions and citations on editorial activity within minutes? Jacob 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about that particular content. I care that it is properly sourced per our WP:BLP policy. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly states "At the time, the world's youngest" then you're welcome to add the text. But it must be a reliable source and you cannot rely on synthesis. --NeilN talk to me 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN as i clearly stated the article met WP:SS which clearly addresses your issue of WP:BLP policy about the specific statement of issue. How can you say you don't care about the issue? The quora source is only reliable on grounds that it has independently verified its claims from a notable source. This combined with the fact that you deprived me the ability to add other notable sources about the specific matter is not WP:NOV. WP:ADMINCOND is supposed to be WP:ADMINACCT. i have nothing to do with the quora source's notability but it was a legitimate claim worthy of encyclopedic inclusion.Jacob 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SS has nothing to do with our WP:BLP policy here. That assertion, coupled with your other statements about sourcing, have me wondering if you really understand what the issue is. --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the context of the conversation WP:SS makes sense, in comparison to an edit that has now been included it meetsWP:BLP clearly. had you changed this at first i would have no argument and removed the overstatements. But outright removal was you shutting out everyone impatiently and indiscriminately. Then threats of blocking(although they were valid) without addressing the matter was the issue. The approach was combative and impatient. That is why i got involved. But your argument makes sense. If your combative it literally feels like your trying to get something out of someone's eye. i appreciate the oversight. Jacob 21:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SS has nothing to do with our WP:BLP policy here. That assertion, coupled with your other statements about sourcing, have me wondering if you really understand what the issue is. --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN as i clearly stated the article met WP:SS which clearly addresses your issue of WP:BLP policy about the specific statement of issue. How can you say you don't care about the issue? The quora source is only reliable on grounds that it has independently verified its claims from a notable source. This combined with the fact that you deprived me the ability to add other notable sources about the specific matter is not WP:NOV. WP:ADMINCOND is supposed to be WP:ADMINACCT. i have nothing to do with the quora source's notability but it was a legitimate claim worthy of encyclopedic inclusion.Jacob 20:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about that particular content. I care that it is properly sourced per our WP:BLP policy. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly states "At the time, the world's youngest" then you're welcome to add the text. But it must be a reliable source and you cannot rely on synthesis. --NeilN talk to me 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN but there are other sources that are a fair representation and not proportionately biased about the very specific issue. Wouldn't it be proper, neutral and fair that you ask me to provide a better source rather than revocable shut me out because of an unreliable source. That specific reason why i brought up WP:NPOV because your actions were hasty, inconsiderate and impatient when there are other valid sources considering the fact that i have been justifying my edit actions all the way. I understand that because your a WP:ADMIN you can find justification for any of your actions against valid editorial activity of others, but who says that you must make conclusive and subjective actions and citations on editorial activity within minutes? Jacob 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV has "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Quora (for the fifth time) is not a reliable source. And why are you deleting my posts here? [1] [2] I'm assuming you've read the warnings. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN. I appreciate your oversight but i think its does not meet WP:NOV. you have purposely reversed the edit to prevent me from further edits when your argument lacks standing. Haven't i clearly explained how we arrived at each of the actions to you and you have no counter arguments. Why go to noticeboard or seek dispute resolution when there is no issue. so whats the issue with the statement that makes you personally have a problem with. please can you just give me a reason and i will rest my case about this without any argument. I have validly sourced the statement, justified my edits all the way, and the claims are independently notable and verifiable. But your the only one who wants me to go to noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Surely is that really neutral for wikipedia, a platform that thrives on the grounds of freedom and neutrality. Jacob 17:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fix your signature
[edit]Your signature does not contain a link to your user or talk page, and thus it is a violation of policy. Please fix it immediately and demonstrate that you have done so below. If you continue to edit without doing so, you will be blocked. Swarm ♠ 22:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- i have now fixed my signature Jacob (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)