User talk:Dieselkeough

March 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm 25stargeneral. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that candidate websites are not reliable sources because they are not independent of the subject. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional media does not cover third parties as they revolve around convention status.

Would it instead be appropriate to submit the FEC filings as the source? Dieselkeough (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not, as anyone can make an FEC filing and it's a primary source. The purpose of sourcing to reliable sources is to ensure content is A) reliably verifiable, B) noteworthy for inclusion. If traditional media does not cover these candidates then Wikipedia policy is to not write about them. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is worth considering that as a whole, it is needed to provide a more whole candidate list. It would be inaccurate (and biased) to include only those candidates mentioned by media sources, while not taking into account those candiates who are running, and have been making the rounds in convention spaces (where the votes for said candidates take place)

Candidates such as Mike Ter Maat, Chase Oliver, and Jacob hornberger have participated in State convention sponsored debates, however traditional media does not co er these events as the Libertarian Convention (and the LP presidential nomination process as a whole) relies on the Convention nomination process, which for the most part is a closed loop.

FEC filings is a primary academic source as to who is running.

As the article stated, context matters, and in this case the amount of coverage this gets is miniscule, but each candidate does make an influential difference.

and from a documentation point of view, it is important to be wholly accurate, rather than only allowing Joe exotic, who was expelled from the party in 2019.

FEC filings are an informative source, and while they arent headlines, according to the guidelines, they are sufficient for a candidate being added due to the greater context. Dieselkeough (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a post about each individual person, but a list of candidates who have filed with the FEC.

As a list it is not a biography, and in that context a full biography is not needed. Dieselkeough (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies and procedures that you are not familiar with. The reason we use RS for everything is not ONLY to verify, it's to determine what is noteworthy for inclusion. You have made 10 edits to Wikipedia. I have made over 30,000. Please, listen to what I'm telling you. We have sourcing requirements. You WILL end up blocked if you don't follow them, and I do not want to see that happen to you. I am trying to help. In general starting off editing in a designated contentious topic is not a good idea because others are less accepting of these mistakes. I am going to issue you the contentious topic alert for American politics to make you aware that our policies are strictly adhered to in this area. I am also giving you an invitation to the WP:Teahouse where experienced editors are available round-the-clock to answer your questions about how to properly source content. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

25stargeneral (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Dieselkeough, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

25stargeneral (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]