User talk:NathanHD99

Welcome

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. --VViking_TalkEdits 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also explain why you deleted the edit on the Young Conservatives of Texas page. How would the statement of principles of an organization not be allowed for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? NathanHD99 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason

Hello NathanHD99! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --VViking_TalkEdits 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try a making a more Wikipedia friendly version NathanHD99 (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Young Conservatives of Texas have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those contributions are not for advertising the organization but to give more information about them. How does informing readers of their Statement of Principles, their State Board members, or who they endorse qualify as "advertising"? Organizations like the Young Democrats of America and Democratic Socialists of America are allowed to do the same thing and those are not taken down for being considered "advertising". NathanHD99 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No their articles do not do the same thing. I think the list of officials in the YDA article is inappropriate, but I see no statement of principles. To be significant enough ("notable" isn't the correct word) endorsements should have been discussed by independent sources. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok would labeling it as an "Ideology" section work better than? An organization's statement of principles and their ideology are normally the same thing if not very similar. NathanHD99 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also for endorsements I found an independent news source so if I cite that can an endorsement section be included in the article? NathanHD99 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Young Conservatives of Texas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Young Conservatives of Texas, you may be blocked from editing. You described them as non-partisan, which means "Nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with, and a lack of bias toward, a political party." Yet the endorsements you added were clearly extremely partisan, ie all one party. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing I can assume you do not want to actually resolve this editing disagreement and just want to use your admin privileges for your own ends NathanHD99 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe that you may be editing in violation of our terms of service. In other words, illegally. Wikipedia is a private corporation and can set its own rules about who can edit. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on notable people in articles

Should only include those with their own personal article. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a formal relationship with the YCoT?

I don't mean are you a member, I mean are you some sort of official, etc? Because if you are, you need to read and follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty obvious that the other editor making the same edits is the IT director. Am I right in thinking you are the other ND, the political director? Doug Weller talk 12:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t answered this question. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit further until you answer Doug Weller's question above

Hello NathanHD99. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:NathanHD99. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=NathanHD99|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I do not receive any compensation from YCT for my edits. NathanHD99 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]