User talk:173.52.212.151

September 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Calabe1992. I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Freddie Mac with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive, and I’ve reverted it. In the future, please use the sandbox for testing and be sure to provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Please feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Credit crunch with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Onewhohelps (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

You may be interested in editing Criticism of libertarianism. Edits to the lede of an article need to reflect the body text of the article, and the policy on criticisms is that the section should be short, towards the end of the article, and if significant in its own right span out into a new article. Well done with your sourcing of the criticisms, but they don't belong in the lede of the Libertarianism article, but in the criticism article! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP as a source

Please look at WP:CIRCULAR. We not use Wikipedia for the source of information. The wikilinks we supply (like this one) are not sources. They simply lead us to other articles that should have WP:RS backing them up. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)01:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reliable sourcing, Primary sources, consensus and BLP policy

Your contribution history shows repeated sourcing of material to unreliable sources such as open wikis. You need to cite material to reliable sources, such as published works (ie: works where an editor or editorial board takes final responsibility for the content of the work, and ensures that a content review procedure is in place prior to publication). Ideally you should cite high quality reliable sources: scholarly works.

You are required to provide sufficient material to verify your source, this means citing the publisher, place of publication, page number, year of publication, the title in full. Please look up how to cite works correctly so others can verify your claims.

You cannot quote primary sources (ie: Jefferson's writings) to make an argument. This constitutes original research. You need to find a journal article, scholarly chapter, or scholarly monograph that discusses and analyses Jefferson's writings and then links it explicitly to the topic of the article you are writing on.

Articles such as Libertarianism have a healthy editorial community, for example, Talk:Libertarianism and have repeatedly discussed the WP:LEDE and what it should contain. While it is good to be bold once, if you are reverted you should start a discussion on the talk page with your proposed edits and win consensus through arguing wikipedia policy and demonstrating your point from high quality reliable sources.

You have made a number of contentious editors to biographies of living people. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people is stricter than many other areas of editing. You need to supply reliable sources, preferably of the highest quality, for these claims.

Given your area of editing, you may like to look at sources like The Guardian for claims regarding recent publications and currently living individuals. The Guardian's claims are checked to a higher standard than many other newspapers, and The Guardian has a journalistic interest in the areas you edit in. Similarly, newspapers from some of the larger socialist organisations may have an interest in your area of editing. To help you out, here is the welcome message containing basic policy and conduct advice, immediately below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 173.52.212.151, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Conflicts of Interest

Please do not use your own works, even when published in the peer reviewed scholarly mode, to expand the wikipedia. Placing a note on the Talk: page of the article, noting the potential use of the source, and indicating your conflict of interest, will allow other editors to evaluate your scholarly work and add them to the article. If this does not affect your editing, please ignore it; if it does affect your editing, please do not edit with a conflict of interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

---