User talk:Mwali6084

Welcome

Hello, Mwali6084, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russian presidential election, 2012, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Happy editing! RJFF (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Russian Presidential election

Hello Mwali6084,

on Wikipedia we do not judge whether or not contents correspond with our own observations, perceptions and analysis (this would constitute Wikipedia:Original research, which is deprecated here) That you personally find the score of Prokhorov in a certain opinion poll unlikely, is not a reason not to include it. The only reason would be, if you could show that the source would not qualify for the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. But I have not seen you dealing with the source factually and with arguments. You have either removed the content without giving any rationale in the edit summary or you stated that it were "a bullshit poll with no relation to reality REMOVE IT!!!!!" This is neither WP:CIVIL nor is WP:SHOUTing welcome on Wikipedia. If you object to the source, please discuss your concerns on the talk page and try to convince other users. I also want to warn you that repeated reverting and removing of content is considered WP:Edit warring and may lead to a block from Wikipedia. Please comply with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and try to contribute in a co-operative way. Thank you for your understanding. --RJFF (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please remind to always sign your contribution on articles' and users' talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will show your name and date and time under your post, so that other users can know that it was written by you. --RJFF (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have not invalidated any poll. We have to assume that they are all valid, until the opposite is proven. You are the one who wants to declare a poll result invalid. Still, it is undue for Wikipedia editors to decide which polls are correct and which are false, just because the results may differ significantly. If all polls would have the same results, there would be no need to have different and concurrent polls. Of course, it also strikes me that the superjob poll massively differs from all the other polls, but I would not dare to declare it false or fraudulent or to discard it as "propaganda" or even "bullshit". I would propose to present all the different polls without judgment and selection, and to leave it to the readers to draw their conclusions on which poll they deem likely or reliable. If you are of the opinion, that superjob were generally not a reliable source, you can address that on the article's talk page or let the source be checked at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. And please do sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Try to adopt good Wikipedia practice. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You have mocked that I was arguing merely on a formalistic base, but we have policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and it is important to observe them to make constructive co-operation possible in a project with hundreds of thousands of editors, having their own opinions each. The main pillar of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Derived from this base is the line Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This means that what you say may be the truth, but unless it is verifiable with reliable sources, it is considered your WP:Original research. All personal observations, experience, knowledge and analysis of our editors are considered Original Research, and cannot be included here. All your observations - 6 times higher score than usual, not supported by any party, etc. - and your conclusion that the findings of the poll cannot be correct, are "original research", and therefore have not any value on Wikipedia. If you could prove that "Superjob" were generally considered a partisan, biased or unreliable source, it would be different. If you still have concerns, please continue this discussion at Talk:Russian presidential election, 2012. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article María de Ágreda, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your email

I do not respond to discussion about article content via email. Discussion of problems with articles takes place on the article talk page. Yworo (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)