Chuckxxx
Welcome!
editHello, Chuckxxx, 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 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! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Additional advice
editAdditionally, I would like to give you some more specific advice on editing Wikipedia, if you are open to it. It is best to stay away from self-published sources such as this: http://voderst.com/ - since the accuracy of websites like these are questionable, or at the very least, unverifiable.
Also, some of the info in your edits seem to be based off of your own original research or synthesis of different sources into a single conclusion, which is usually not allowed on Wikipedia either. For example, this edit makes the conclusion that a New Yorker quote is referencing "James Turner Stephens, Jr.", even though the New Yorker article makes no specific mention of Turner. Original research like this isn't allowed on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is only meant to follow what reliable sources have already published.
If some of your edits get reverted for the above reasons, you are free to add back info into an article as long as you have a reliable source to support said info. I hope these explanations help. Cheers! - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Let me be clear, this is very real. I have a mountain of evidence to support this story. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not crazy. I am an educated middle aged professional. The story, if you take the time to research it yourself, you will see just how substantial it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckxxx (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stop citing your own website. If no reliable sources are covering this then its not being added end of story. SK2242 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, no one called you a conspiracy theorist or crazy. And SK2242 is right. I'll be a bit more direct - Read the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:SELFPUB. If you're still confused why we've said what we have, read WP:OR. I'll summarize, though - Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to add their own opinions or original research. And there is no argument you could make that would make that website acceptable as a source - that is not my opinion or me trying to be harsh, it is simply based off of community policy. If that website were acceptable, any person could make a website, write whatever they wanted, come on Wikipedia, and claim that they have a mountain of evidence. And then Wikipedia would simply be social media or a forum, where anonymous users could publish anything at all. That is not what Wikipedia is, though. If the story is substantial, then please find and cite other sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. If you want to edit here, you have to be willing to follow community policies. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- As an administrator here, with 10 years' editing experience, I've just dropped in to say that Whisperjanes is absolutely right in what they have advised you. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, no one called you a conspiracy theorist or crazy. And SK2242 is right. I'll be a bit more direct - Read the policies WP:VERIFY and WP:SELFPUB. If you're still confused why we've said what we have, read WP:OR. I'll summarize, though - Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to add their own opinions or original research. And there is no argument you could make that would make that website acceptable as a source - that is not my opinion or me trying to be harsh, it is simply based off of community policy. If that website were acceptable, any person could make a website, write whatever they wanted, come on Wikipedia, and claim that they have a mountain of evidence. And then Wikipedia would simply be social media or a forum, where anonymous users could publish anything at all. That is not what Wikipedia is, though. If the story is substantial, then please find and cite other sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. If you want to edit here, you have to be willing to follow community policies. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)