User talk:Stompski

September 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alberta separatism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be using the article for advocacy. Please use the talkpage to present an argument for your additions and for their tone, and find consensus. Simply re-adding material without consensus can become disruptive. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for promotion of a cause. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia works

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream sources.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to stop marking your edits as minor. Minor edits are for small changes like fixing punctuation or spelling errors. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Miranda Rosin. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You know about WP:NOR, you were warned about it more than two years ago, plus literally earlier today by me. Enough is enough. --Yamla (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]