User talk:0102April0102

Welcome![edit]

Hello, 0102April0102, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to boards.ie, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to boards.ie. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Nowhere in the terms and conditions does it state your initial assertion, that boards.ie is "arbitrarily complying to their own terms and conditions and for mistreating users according to their convenience and interests". Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe toward boards.ie. However, if you really feel this is relevant for the article, discuss the matter at Talk:boards.ie and see if other editors support the addition. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred,

Reg Boards.ie changes - what configures a primary source of information (versus a secondary source) for the edit, so that the insertion complies with Wikipedia regulations? In the case of this article, edits were made based on primary source of information - the terms and conditions of the company.

And if certain aspects of a Wikipedia entry are disputed by owners of a company who are worried about leaks and whistle blowers, how can we make sure that the factual information remains in Wikipedia and the political interests and disputes are not getting in the way of real information reaching the lay public?

I would appreciate your help on this matter.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0102April0102 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC) (copied from User talk:C.Fred)[reply]

A secondary source would be coverage of the claims in a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine, or similar publication with an editorial staff that reviews content for accuracy.

The problem with your edit is that the primary source does not support your claims. You assert that "Boards.ie is notorious for arbitrarily complying to their own terms and conditions and for mistreating users according to their convenience and interests" and that permanent bans have occurred for just mentioning they're searching for legal help; however, that's not supported by the terms. That's what would need to be documented in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]