User talk:Velostodon

Velostodon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Velostodon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

- Mr X 16:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC) - Mr X 16:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at 2017 Women's March. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My additions were of equal merit to the surrounding materials. If FiveThirtyEight is good enough for other portions of the article, its good enough for this one. If criticism of Farrakhan is worth note, then criticism of murderer Donna Hylton is worth note. Velostodon (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "criticism" is that? You synthesized "criticism" from the fact that she spoke, and a 20-year-old source which talks about her criminal record. You cited no source which actually criticized the event. You might believe that the march should be criticized for allowing her to speak, but you're not allowed to create such criticism out of whole cloth. That's textbook original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]