User talk:Shadowthesonic

February 2023

Hello, I'm SpookyTwenty. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Merseyside Maritime Museum, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SpookyTwenty (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Merseyside Maritime Museum. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --IWI (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. --IWI (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits do not use reliable sources, see WP:SELFSOURCE. --IWI (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IWI and SpookyTwenty.Thanks for pointing me WP:SELFSOURCE.I read it all.I think you have to read back bellow.

「A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability.」

Merseyside Maritime Museum have “The piece of work(art) itself”.The official site displays “The piece of work”, and it is completely different from the one created by the individual. In short, the official site is not self-published.

--Shadowthesonic (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Guidelines

Hi! I noticed your edits are being reversed and wanted to point you to wikipedia's guidelines on citations, specifically WP:SELFSOURCE - typically wikipedia doesn't care what subjects of articles say about themselves, and rely on independent sources instead! SpookyTwenty (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IWI and SpookyTwenty.Thanks for pointing me WP:SELFSOURCE.I read it all.I think you have to read back bellow.

「A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability.」

Merseyside Maritime Museum have “The piece of work(art) itself”.The official site displays “The piece of work”, and it is completely different from the one created by the individual. In short, the official site is not self-published.

--Shadowthesonic (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Shadowthesonic (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from the website of the museum are not considered reliable, and continuing to revert back will result in you being blocked from editing (edit warring). --IWI (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listening and the latest revision seems great by Wiki standards! Independent reliable sources like the BBC are what Wikipedia is built on! Really appreciate your work here and hope you decide to continue contributing to Wikipedia!

SpookyTwenty (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but in future please discuss if your edit has been reverted (bold, revert, discuss is a good practice; repeatedly reverting back and forth is against the edit warring policy, especially if you do so more than three times in 24 hours). --IWI (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]