User talk:MartinRivasPhD

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MartinRivasPhD, 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 edits to the page Dustin Lance Black have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to 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. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dustin Lance Black. Thank you. The Advocate is not exactly WP:RS. Please await proper sourcing. See the article's talk page. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate was used as a WP:RS a few lines above in the same section. --Martin A. Rivas 10:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All The Advocate is doing here is regurgitating a gossip column elsewhere. If you research the link you added you discover that it is entirely unreliable as a source. Having TA report on the gossip column does not render it to be reliable. Please remember that the truth is irrelevant to WIkipedia. We must have our facts sourced in WP:RS, even if that differs from the truth. It is a Wikiparadox. Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you input. Martin A. Rivas 10:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing about this is that I do not doubt your good motives or intentions. We just have some rules, some of which seem arcane. With WP:BLP issues these rules become rather more important. So I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is meant. What you have added may be 100% true. It probably is. But, until it is well sourced, Wikipedia is not allowed to be interested in it. Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I am realizing that starting editing in Wikipedia is harder than one may think at first. Thank you again, and my apololgies for snarking (by the way, for a non-native English speaker... what does it mean?). Martin A. Rivas 10:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Snarking" is very much the same as "using words to snipe". If that is a poor explanation do please ask me again. As a new editor you may find User:Timtrent/A good article helpful. Wikipedia is simple to edit, but it is not as easy as it looks, I'm afraid. It can and should be great fun, and I hope you enjoy it. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]