User talk:Nroister

Welcome!

Hello, Nroister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Eric Pulier did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drmies As a reliable source, I provided links to the verdicts from the courts, as well as secondary sources reporting on the matter. I also discussed this in the relevant talk page. ie. Talk:Eric Pulier#c-Nroister-20240618145900-Semi-reversion of previous rollback, bribery and SEC verdicts The addition is entirely fact-based, satisfies the verifiability and reliable source required, and can stand up against challenges. Of course, if there are gaps, I look forward to discovering what these might be. Nroister (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. First of all, two of the things you cited were primary sources and that's not OK. Also, that Banking Day article reads like an opinion piece, esp. with phrases like "Pulier, in his desperation to generate more revenue from CBA..." Then, you wrote "The charges and penalties did not result in a criminal conviction, but they represent significant events in Pulier's career"; the first part is a weird way of saying "the charges were dismissed", and the second part is really just editorial commentary which couldn't possibly be proven from the court documents you cited in the paragraph. So, no. You are welcome to take this to WP:BLPN if you like, but you can not insert this in the article, not in this way. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]