User talk:Armanikoka

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Armanikoka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines[edit]

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

In particular, your edit did not cite a reliable source, which would be needed as the article describes the group as having disbanded in 1977.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors on Youtube are not reliable sources. Stick to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting right close to a block[edit]

This edit borders on vandalism. User opinions do not belong in articles.

And your questions at the reference desk give a strong appearance of not being here to work on the encyclopedia.

I've already got the block menu open. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not rely on any user's views or opinions or beliefs. We do not use original research. All we do is cite and summarize reliable sources so that all information can be verified. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are studying law, then law articles would probably be a good area for you to edit. Just be sure to cite a reliable source for any new information. Your textbooks should qualify as reliable sources. Just be sure to paraphrase and summarize (don't plagiarize) and make sure the citation is at least as complete as it'd need to be for a research paper.

As for mentoring, it's not something I do consciously and officially (not saying I won't help, just that I don't think of myself in that role and wouldn't label myself as such) and I somewhat have the impression we're in different time zones (and if we aren't, we will be in a month). You might want to check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area, which has a list of users who are more enthusiastic about mentoring as well as a template you can put on your user page to let users know you'd like to have a mentor ({{subst:adopt me}}). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tobin[edit]

I've reverted your edit to Peter Tobin because the material you added wasn't verified by the source you provided [1]. Additionally, the source is very poor, unsuitable for biographical information for a living person. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try WP:TWA to get a better understanding of Wikipedia while you look for a mentor. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Armanikoka! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:53, Thursday, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your subsequent edits[edit]

I've reverted your edit to Precedent [2]. There's no source and it appears to be your own opinion that you used to contrast against the sourced material there. This is original research to further a point of view not in the sources.

Likewise, your edit to Hank Hill [3] has similar problems. There's no source but in this case other content in the article might be interpreted to imply this. This is an improper synthesis of sourced material, possibly with an unsourced point of view added as well. I've left it intact, hoping you'll work on improving it and providing a direct source for whatever content you decide fits the article.

You may have been noticed that your edit to Better Call Saul has been reverted [4]. I agree with the removal and assessment: Wikipedia is not a venue for speculation. While the information you added is verified in the reference, and even comes from another source, it's pure speculation. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the contribution to Contract [5] that you restored as failing verification. Additionally, the sentence is difficult to understand and the source is poor. I don't expect it will be difficult to find a better source. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your contribution to Remind Me (Röyksopp song). No source, etc. --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your contribution to Pitcoudie for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-user[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note to inform you that I have removed the "adopt me" template from your User page. You have not been active on Wikipedia for a considerable time. Its presence misleads others into thinking that you are still seeking to be adopted and then guided by another editor under the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user scheme. Obviously, you are free to reinsert it if you return to active editing and want to seek adoption again. For simple questions about editing, just ask any of us at the The Teahouse. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]