User talk:Dissidentrightindian

Welcome

Hello, Dissidentrightindian, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dissident right. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will add sources for my claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissidentrightindian (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan in writing an entire article on something as controversial and niche as the "dissident right" you should really makes sure these sources are reliable. This will also mean that they are independent of the dissident right. For example, Fuentes' own work is not reliable for Wikipedia for several reasons. Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Drafts may also help. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources from left wing, right wing, and neutral sources. -thedissidentindian

No, those are not reliable sources. Please review the links above. Don't cite blogs or other user-generated content such as youtube videos. Cite published works, such as news sources or books, with a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Summarize those sources neutrally, which doesn't mean false balance. See WP:NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissidentrightindian (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that source must actually mention "dissident right". It may be obvious to you that "groyper" and "dissident right" are the same, but that's just more original research. If you think this term gets an article, you need to find sources which explain the term directly. Make sure there are enough sources for the term to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Otherwise it will be a waste of time.

Please also see Wikipedia:Signatures. When posting to talk pages, please add a signature by added ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make the article about "Groypers" instead? Dissident Right isn't a well known term tbh. But I don't know how to make a new article. Again, I'm new to wikipedia. Dissidentrightindian (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, you're wading into a mine-field with your first edits. There have been a lot of trolls editing related to Fuentes, so be aware that people's patience is pretty thin. That shouldn't stop you, but know what you're getting into.

I would start by contributing to Draft:Groyper, which was started a few months ago. If you mention any specific people, make sure edits follow Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you find a reliable source that mentions "dissident right", use that, but make sure you include what the source actually says, not what you think it implies. You can also ask questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Groyper

What do you think of this? I tried to make it as netural and accurate as possible.

Dissidentrightindian (talk)Dissidentrightindian (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the draft, since it's very premature. It will need a lot more work before it's ready to move to article space.

You need to summarize what sources are actually saying, but the draft did not do that. For a short article on a controversial topic, it's very useful to cite specific claims, instead of just adding links to the end. See Help:Referencing for beginners. The draft you wrote added a lot of personal opinions as facts, but this isn't appropriate. Every opinion needs to be attributed to a source, and specific claims of fact also need to be sourced. Instead of writing what you personally know, read what reliable sources are saying and summarize that. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need Grayfell's permission to move the article into mainspace; it has sufficient reliable sources to show notability so you can just move it into main space yourself and it should be able to survive. CovidWriter (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since CovidWriter was blocked for disruptive editing, you should ignore that bad advice. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for defending Hitler and the far right in general. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 19 May 2020 (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-1932 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.

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 12:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Draft:Groyper has been reverted.
Your edit here to Draft:Groyper was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/groyper) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]