User talk:Natasjlp

Let's work something out before we get into a war over this... I'll write back in a few hours...

ThorsteinVeblen (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC) best, t.v.[reply]

Unite the Right rally[edit]

Hi. I undid your edit to the Unite the Right rally rally, and I wanted to leave you an explanatory note. But first, I need to notify you that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions.

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.

The second thing I wanted to say had to do with the content you added. Wikipedia articles are supposed to describe what reliable sources say about a topic, they aren't supposed to clarify or explain things, or convince readers of anything. Statements that are subject to dispute can't be made in Wikipedia's voice, though they can be attributed to the people who actually said them. So you can't say

The full transcript of President Trump's press conference on the rally does show he specifically condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists,

because that's an interpretation of the source, not an unambiguous statement of fact.

In addition, statements made on Twitter are generally not considered reliable sources - instead, they count as "self-published sources". So while a tweet might be a reasonable source for what Adams had to say, we can't use it as a source of factual information. Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guettarda, I appreciate you giving this explanation. It's helpful to understand and apologize for not editing this wiki page properly. Couple of questions so I can stay within wiki guidelines while editing.

1) What are discretionary sanctions and how do I avoid them?

2) What does 'shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people' mean exactly, and how does this affect editing?

3) Regarding Twitter for reference, should we not do this at all? and what would be acceptable, for example in this case would we [editors] reference an article from a news source, that is writing about a tweet?

4) I do understand about not trying to clarify or voice an opinion. That makes sense, and now see how that reads. I will try to do a better job when contributing, and use factual information, not using convincing type of verbiage.

Thanks very much - also is this the best way to talk with you? Editing the talk page? don't see a different way, like a direct message option. and signing talk pages like the following? Natasjlp (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Discretionary sanctions" (DS) are a measure that allow administrators to take more drastic measures more quickly. For instance, in a given topic area an administrator can issue a topic ban: "User X is no longer allowed to edit articles related to Barack Obama/Nikola Tesla/AK-47s", depending on the area of the conflict. This is to prevent really disruptive editors who refuse to play by the rules (often involving neutrality) from poisoning the well.
You edited the Unite the Right rally, so you must have an interest in "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". Years ago you edited an Obama-associated article, so that interest is there. These two topics are now both covered by these DS, to prevent disruption. Being given a warning simply means "hey be aware that this is a special area", that's all.
Twitter is at best an acceptable primary source. Best rule of thumb is to never use it. We're an encyclopedia and should rely on secondary sources. So you're citing someone called "Scott Adams" who said on Twitter that something was wrong--but there is no indication that this person's opinion matters at all (and that it's accurate). We rely on reliable sources to verify correctness and to indicate that somebody is worth quoting. I know plenty of people who have opinions, and plenty of them are well-known, but that doesn't mean a thing until secondary sources verify it's worth something. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Serge F. Kovaleski. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What commentary was added - please give specifics. Natasjlp (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]