User talk:Jazzster786

September 2012

Hello, I'm Biker Biker. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Persecution of Shia Muslims without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sayyid. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Persecution of Shia Muslims, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Biker Biker (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and opinions

For several reasons, Wikipedia does not work on the principal that someone who comes along and says "I am an expert in this subject, so you can take my word for it, and accept what I say as fact". One reason is that anyone can edit Wikipedia and claim to be anyone they choose, and someone's claim to be an expert is not proof. This is not just a hypothetical point: we do get many people who come here and simply lie. Another reason is that the very fact of being an "expert" in some subjects, such as religion, may mean that the person is involved, and will have a particular point of view. The adherents of a particular point of view will very likely regard that view as objective truth, but others may not see it as such. For these and other reasons Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion of content is not "truth", but rather coverage in reliable sources. If a reliable source says that something is the case then we accept that, and if no reliable source is available to support a statement then we don't accept it. If different, equally reliable, sources give opposing views, then, other things being equal, we give equal weight to both views: we don't state one view as fact and exclude the other. If you believe that you have good reasons for doubting the reliability of a source then you need to explain your reasons, with a view to establishing a consensus among editors that it is not reliable, not simply to remove the content that the source supports, giving "you can take my word for it, I know" as the reason. Likewise, it is not acceptable to add content to articles on the grounds that you say that you know better than other editors, even if you are convinced that do know better than them. This system is by no means perfect, but in an encyclopaedia where literally anyone in the world can edit, it is as good a system as any, and, for better or for worse, it is the system that Wikipedia uses. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jazzster786, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

More advice

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have "edit-conflicted" with JamesBWatson's helpful advice, but as I have written out mine, I may as well add it.

I am sorry that you have got off to a bad start, and I should like to explain some things about the way Wikipedia works.

Our three important content policies are WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. It is worth reading them in full, but in summary the first two mean that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Wikipedia does not accept content on the basis of personal knowledge or opinion. That does not mean that users with special knowledge or expertise are unwelcome, far from it; but their value is not that they can provide content or opinions which can be accepted uncritically, but rather that, knowing the field, they will know where to find the reliable sources which can be summarised to provide verifiable encyclopedic content.

You should also read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which describes the way Wikipedia works. If you see an edit which you think would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it. However, if your change is reverted, do not simply make it again, which could lead to "edit-warring"; instead, discuss your proposed change on the article talk page, and try to reach WP:Consensus with other editors. ("Editor" means just the same as "user" - there is no separate class of "editors"). If you cannot reach consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution procedures.

WP:Edit warring is not permitted because, if it is allowed, articles end up in the form preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior, and less combative contributors are driven away. For that reason there is a "bright line" rule against making more than three reverts in 24 hours, but that should not be taken as permission to edit-war up to that point.

Now that you have an account, please always log in before editing. That makes it easier to keep track of what is going on. Use of more than one account, or of an IP and an account, is called sockpuppetry if it is done to evade the three revert rule or otherwise to evade scrutiny. That is why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzster786 was opened, but I have commented there that I think this is a case of a good-faith new user who did not at first understand how Wikipedia works.

The links in the Welcome message above will tell you more about Wikipedia: there is also a "one-stop guide" at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)