User talk:126.161.151.172

May 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Toronto van attack, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thanks for the welcome, your critique appears wrong, I see the PUBLISHED maps are now up, and the witness videocoverage is likewise up, neither of which are original research. Cheers.126.161.151.172 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Toronto van attack, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Toronto van attack, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

All cited, referenced

Afraid you have involved yourselves in your own edit war which has no participation from this IP; you could have easily found citations from any number of sources online or newsmedia online to satisfy your desire to make positive, constructive edits. The allegation of disrupting is ridiculous.126.161.151.172 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTHESIS. I've also removed your addition of "Ciscaucasian". Add it again without proper sources and I'll ask another admin to deal with your disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, as both Chechnya and Armenia are Caucasian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.151.172 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And neither are sourced or even mentioned in the article with respect to the subject's ancestry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences if you missed the historical omissions, despite good sources, that the Toronto Vehicle Rampage driver is Armenian (not saying he is not Canadian), versus the historical inclusion of the Paris Knife Attacker is Chechen (not saying he is not an EU French), and how wikipedia is not meant to reflect a NARRATIVE but is meant to be a balanced ENCYCLOPEDIA; in light of the aforementioned disparity the logical term which is non-discriminatory would be Ciscaucasia without mention of either Armenia or Chechenia. Again, so sorry you missed it.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.