User talk:Shannonkramer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Dudhhr. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cockatoo, 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. dudhhrContribs(he/they) 16:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to find those, could you please put those back? Shannonkramer (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cockatoo. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cockatoo. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 13:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an inappropriate link. It is evidence to what I keep typing Shannonkramer (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop![edit]

Shannon, you have been told on multiple occasions that the information you're adding is not appropriate. The cockatoo article is a Featured Article. This means it's held to the encyclopedia's highest standards. A self-published commercial pet supplier's website is not an appropriate addition to this article! Please stop repeatedly adding it! MeegsC (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're a good source, I get supplies from them all the time for my rescue. Shannonkramer (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this time I cited it like everyone asked Shannonkramer (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a different citation this time, you people seriously need to stop complaining for a website that gets banned at schools for not being able to provide actual information Shannonkramer (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason some teachers disallow Wikipedia as a source has zero to do with " not being able to provide actual information" and is 100% attributable to people adding content with poor sourcing, as you are repeatedly doing. Take your dispute to the article talk page to get consensus for its inclusion instead of attempting to force your disputed content into the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been talking and talking but no one is helping me out with getting the information in Shannonkramer (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep providing links and information but ya'll keep denying it, and it really does, I've heard teachers tell my children "Don't use wikipedia because it is not a reliable source" And now I see why. Shannonkramer (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being asked to provide links, you are being asked to include a reliable source. Have you read the links to the policies and guidelines provided here? You cannot add information to articles based on random website links that do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It's edits such as yours that open Wikipedia to claims of inaccuracy, not the removal of such content.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, I provided one source which you denied just because it was from a pet company who has experience with parrots.
Then I provided a different source from a website that wasn't even a company, it was from an entire website built from professional parrot handlers
https://www.parrotwebsite.com/are-parrots-service-animals/ Shannonkramer (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this doesn't qualify either. It's a commercial site that says right at the bottom that it gets paid when you click on a link. There are no sources, and no names (other than things like "John") to say who's writing the article. Can't you find a newspaper article about this? Surely, if there's been debate, it's been in the news! MeegsC (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not gonna worry about it anymore, I set up my own Wikipedia and copied all the info from this Wikipedia. And no one uses newspaper articles to debate anymore. Shannonkramer (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Shannon, do you understand what a WP:reliable source is? If not, click on that link and read abouth them. A reliable source is NOT a commercial website that gets paid every time somebody clicks a link! It's a journal article. Or a newspaper's website. Or a bona fide nonprofit. Find one of those for the information you want to add, or other editors are going to continue to remove it and you're going to find yourself temporarily blocked for edit warring. And we don't want that. Surely, if this is something well-known, there will be reliable sources (and that DOESN'T include the pet store you always get your supplies from) that say so! MeegsC (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Shannonkramer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shannonkramer&oldid=1109899816"