CodingApe
Welcome!
editHi CodingApe! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Original research
editYour claims about libsoftiktok are original research because you’re trying to put your own interpretation of primary sources into the article and saying it’s better than not one but two reliable secondary sources. This has been discussed to death at places like Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. Read the FAQ there. Dronebogus (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for reaching out with a better explanation. However, I’m not trying to include information in the article. I’m only asking that questionable sources be removed, and there is a massive difference between those two situations. The rules of Wikipedia acknowledge the difference, as editors are blatantly encouraged to examine the validity of articles on a case-by-case basis.
- The topics in Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act clearly support my argument. User:Wikipedialuva made an edit after performing 'original research' and disproving a claim made by one of the article's sources... Their edit still remains today.
- At the very least, I believe you should leave the discussion open so other editors can weigh in, especially considering I have not violated any of the rules of Wikipedia. CodingApe (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’d recommend asking WP:Teahouse about this Dronebogus (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi CodingApe. I don't plan on wading into the core topic of this discussion regarding the "Libs of TikTok" article; however, since you mentioned my edit[1] on the "Florida Parental Rights in Education Act" article and characterized it as "original research", I would like to respond to this claim and explain why I do not agree with its characterization of being "original research". The edit concerns me changing "Fox News" to "Fox News affiliates" when discussing which news outlets used the term "Don't Say Gay law" or the "Don't Say Gay bill". The article originally stated Fox News used this terminology, citing an article posted on a local Fox News affiliate's website but written by the AP (and was clearly noted on the local affiliate's website as such). The Wikipedia article's wording implied, or at a minimum could lead readers to believe, that the national Fox News organization themselves did original reporting using the term (like the other news organizations listed did), which is not true. However, at least one local Fox News affiliate did in fact use the terminology for their original reporting. In response, I clarified that it was Fox News affiliates that use the term, not Fox News, and updated the reference. My edit was merely a correction to clarify what sources were providing original reporting using what terms. The edit did not include "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by C F A 💬 14:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).