User talk:RedwoodDesert132
OR/POV edits at the Florida parental rights page[edit]
You are persistently adding information only you consider important without evidence (Wikipedia:No original research violation) and clearly trying to insert an unsourced positive-slanted interpretation of the text to unduly “balance” sourced, noteworthy criticism of the law (an example of Wikipedia:False balance). Please don’t do this, Wikipedia isn’t an amateur legal scholar program or an editorial page. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry you have interpreted my intentions this way, yet I haven't stated anything that is not objective/literally within the content of the bill itself, hence no violation ofWikipedia:No original research. As for not providing a source to the statement, the source had already been identified, the bill itself. I simply stated a fact pertaining to the contents of the bill which is objective. Of course it's important to state the opinions and concerns of both the proponents and critics of this bill, yet the statement "It should be noted that the bill prohibits classroom instruction on all sexual orientations and gender identities, not simply those which are non-heterosexual," is not an opinion of either group, it is the content of the bill. RedwoodDesert132 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- “It should be noted” is pretty obviously an opinion, and the fact that you’re bringing up this detail is OR without a reliable citation. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified." RedwoodDesert132 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, two users (including me) have challenged this. Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- No one is "likely" to object does not mean no one can. This fact I stated this is easily verifiable by reading the bill and most commentators and sources would agree with that. Yet since it has been challenged I will include a source. RedwoodDesert132 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- No one is arguing that the text from the bill is wrong, we are arguing that “it should be noted” is partisan because it is. Dronebogus (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- No one is "likely" to object does not mean no one can. This fact I stated this is easily verifiable by reading the bill and most commentators and sources would agree with that. Yet since it has been challenged I will include a source. RedwoodDesert132 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, two users (including me) have challenged this. Dronebogus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified." RedwoodDesert132 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- “It should be noted” is pretty obviously an opinion, and the fact that you’re bringing up this detail is OR without a reliable citation. Dronebogus (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
January 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Sideswipe9th. An edit that you recently made to Florida Parental Rights in Education Act seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
July 2023[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Black power, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't add links to "See also" that are already included in linked in the body of the article. Meters (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- And please do not add "See also" links that have no connection to the topic, as you did at Moroni, Comoros. Meters (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)