User talk:MiltownkidZEE

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MiltownkidZEE, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Politrukki (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter[edit]

Hi, User:MiltownkidZEE and again, welcome to Wikipedia and sorry about this inconvenience. I have reverted several edits of yours to article Black Lives Matter, because they contained original research. Usually primary sources aren't acceptable sources, because we are not allowed to analyze them. Statements like "first used ... and evolved into the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter" should be sourced to secondary reliable sources.

Please read carefully what Wikipedia policy says about original research. If you have questions, please add them here after this comment and I'll answer them if I can (I'm not super experienced Wikipedia editor myself). Politrukki (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Politrukki. Am I doing this right? I'm on a desktop now. I wrote and sourced my own article. Is that a Wikipedia faux pas? I'm reading through the Wikipedia guidelines and they're pretty clear about using reliable sources but, in this case, Vice Media, Inc. and Fortune (magazine) are completely unreliable! No one fact checked! How does one go about fact checking the articles that Wikipedia uses? Is there a "talk page" or something? I know discussion happens somewhere... I'll look for it. Thanks for taking the time to write me a response to my first edits. I'll slowly figure out what's OK and not OK. I think I'm going to reach out to editors of Fortune and Vice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiltownkidZEE (talk • contribs)

(sorry for the delay) If you meant to ping me (send a notification when you address me), you should have written {{ping|Politrukki}}, {{re|Politrukki}} or {{u|Politrukki}}. You have to sign your edit, or notification won't be sent.

Anyway, the main issue here is that linking to a blog post doesn't make your edit any less original research and – once again – I've had to revert your edits. "Reliable source" is Wikipedia jargon. For example I would say that anything in Fortune generally is most definitely a WP:RS, since it is published by respected publishing house, and it has good reputation for fact-checking. We can't disregard a source only because we think that something stated in it isn't a fact. However it is important to note what our guideline says:

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

If you want to discuss whether some source is reliable or not, the main venue for discussion is article's own talk page, e.g. Talk:Black Lives Matter. Or you can ask second opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Please don't go Talk:Fortune (magazine) or Talk:Vice Media, Inc. as the purpose of those talk pages is discussing the Wikipedia article in question. Politrukki (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]