User talk:Loltardo

Hello, Loltardo, and

.

Please review

, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• How to write a great article
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Fences&Windows 23:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor, you've made a few controversial edits on recent American politics and you have issues with sourcing and editorialising. I wanted to note these issues early so you can take note of our policies and guidelines and continue as a productive editor.

It was your attempt at a creation of a biography of J. Hutton Pulitzer that I first saw and it was rightly reverted as noted here. Please read

.

At Political Research Associates, your edit was opinionated. See

]

June 2021

Hello Loltardo! Your additions to

issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. (from https://www.gaiaamazonas.org/en/noticias/2019-05-31_maloca-the-big-house-of-the-amazon/) Thank you. firefly ( t · c ) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that stub tags, whether {{

]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support your efforts to edit Wikipedia, so I have a few points of advice to follow that may prevent you from getting reverted.

• A lot of editors agree with
  WP:BRD
  . Boldly edit, but if reverted, then discuss on the talk page.
• It will be difficult to add content to articles if you can't find sources for it. And not necessarily the sources you believe, but the sources Wikipedia counts as reliable (see
  WP:RS/N
  ).
• Another way to edit Wikipedia is to look for content that may be Original Research (
  WP:OR
  ), or has a "Citation Needed" tag, and remove it if it has been tagged for several months or more.

(And don't focus too much on the Snopes/Babylon Bee stuff. Many contributors have tried to achieve a consensus for edits but were unable to do so.)

05:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kodak Black, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

]

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pierre Kory, you may be blocked from editing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shibbolethink,

This is in response to your post above accusing me of "disruptive editing." I am requesting further clarification on this charge as this was in response to a single, one-time, very minor edit I made to an article, Pierre Kory, by simply tagging a single word as editorializing language per the Wikipedia [guide on editorializing language].

Please provide me with the following information:

1. How and why this isolated incident constitutes disruptive editing, especially considering its one-off nature with NO back-and-forth or even limited dispute with any other users/editors (other than yourself on my talk page (not the article's)).
2. Why the tagged wording in question does not constitute editorializing language as detailed in Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Words to watch. To be clear, the topic under discussion here is the use of the adverb

erroneously" in the following statement, "During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19." in the article's first paragraph.

As the WP

states, "This kind of persuasive writing approach [adverbs] is also against the Wikipedia: No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion), and the Instructional and presumptuous language guideline (Wikipedia does not break the fourth wall and write at the reader, other than with navigational hatnotes)."

In this case, it is clear that the adverb "erroneously" serves to steer the reader toward a particular interpretation or conclusion. This is particularly troublesome given that the science around this drug's efficacy (or lack thereof) in treating COVID-19 is not settled. Therefore, simply stating "...Kory claimed..." would be more appropriate from the perspective of impartiality and neutrality.

Looking forward to your clarification. Thank you. Loltardo (talk)

I appreciate your passion about this topic. The reason I gave you this warning is that you should be extremely careful wading into the fraught and complex editing environment of COVID-19 treatments as a relatively inexperienced editor. There are many rules (including discretionary sanctions as referenced above for politics, which also apply to this COVID-19 area) which could get you tripped up. For instance, the reason this is disruptive has more to do with the history of the page itself rather than any history of you as an editor in this topic. That particular passage has been vandalized and removed and edited with non-reliable sources many times. We, as a community, expect you to have read these discussions and considered the history of the page before making an edit like that, in such a contentious topic area, to such a contentious passage.

You appear to know there is controversy, but you have characterized the controversy as more unsettled than it truly is. We have enough studies and evidence to know that if an effect exists for Ivermectin, it is likely small. It cannot be detected in relatively large studies when high quality control groups are used. This indicates that, if an effect exists, it is likely very small. See the WP:WikiProject COVID-19/Consensus page to read more about the sources which show this. It is uncontroversial among the scientific community that Ivermectin is not a wonder drug.

Please be more cautious when wading into long-standing disputes, and when entering into areas with such high levels of controversy. it is typically these areas which so often result in the banning or blocking of users who could very likely have contributed positively to other areas of the project without issue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the insight, warning, and clarification! Loltardo (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xiao Yao Wan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stress, Depression and Poria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

I have reverted your addition of a date of birth to

]

Is IMDB considered a reliable, published source? I just thought it was odd that a famous person's Wikipedia page had no birthdate, so did some research and wanted to add it. Loltardo (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your wanting to supply that information. Unvortunately, IMDb is published but not reliable. See

WP:USERGENERATED for other sources that are in that category. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Media bias in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks, ]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message