Juliacohen2022
Welcome!
Hi Juliacohen2022, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! NoonIcarus (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022 edit
Hello, I'm NoonIcarus. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! NoonIcarus (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In sight of your recent edits, I wanted to comment that I'm not sure about the relevance of Alex Suarez in Alex Saab's article, or his relation to the subject, if any. A related situation has already been discussed in the past (Talk:Alex Saab#Twitter). While I'm at it, I've noticed that you have edited only in said article. Are there any other topics that interest you? Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
August 2022 edit
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Alex Saab, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- I added the fact a book was published that supports him in the section that lists his supporters, why was it reverted? Juliacohen2022 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- How is mentioning in a list of supporters that someone wrote a book in his defense vandalism? Juliacohen2022 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alex Saab. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- In the article's talk page (Talk:Alex Saab#Twitter), Alex Suarez's relevance has been questioned and you have been discouraged from adding related content. Who is Alex Suarez? Why is he relevant? Why should he be included in the article and given the same weight as experts, journalists and government officials? Everything suggests that he should not be included, but you have insisted in adding this information, which is why you are being warned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- He's relevant because he's written a book on the subject. Why should that be included in the article? You do not own the article, you get no vetoes over its content, and you are not the gatekeeper as to whose book should be mentioned or not. It is not that Suarez's relevance has been questioned; it's that you've questioned it, and you've proffered not a single shred of evidence or argument in doing so. It's not that Juliacohen2022's been discouraged from adding information; it's that you do not want her doing so. Your behavior in bullying a new editor over this information is objectionable in of itself, and it is high time you stopped doing so. Ravenswing 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing: Relevance is demonstrated by independent coverage, which the book clearly lacks, as well as any apparent reviews. Alex Suarez is furthermore the president of the Hands Off Venezuela chapter of the University of North Florida, which far from being an expert on the field as it is warranted by a BLP article, shows neutrality issues with an already controversial article, as well of reasons why it should not be included.
- He's relevant because he's written a book on the subject. Why should that be included in the article? You do not own the article, you get no vetoes over its content, and you are not the gatekeeper as to whose book should be mentioned or not. It is not that Suarez's relevance has been questioned; it's that you've questioned it, and you've proffered not a single shred of evidence or argument in doing so. It's not that Juliacohen2022's been discouraged from adding information; it's that you do not want her doing so. Your behavior in bullying a new editor over this information is objectionable in of itself, and it is high time you stopped doing so. Ravenswing 17:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Accusing me of biting a new editor seems unfair: I was the first to welcome the user to Wikipedia, pointing out to guidelines and help, and my warnings over behavior have been gradual, starting from general notes to caution and warning templates. As for the accusations of owning the article, you can take a look at the article's edit history or talk page to see how many of my proposals have been disputed and how I have not insisted on them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Which the book clearly lacks." There is no "clearly" about it. What is your evidence for this assertion? Nor does belonging to an advocacy group by-definition mean one cannot be knowledgeable in a particular area -- an extremely curious charge -- nor do I see that you've done a blanket review of each and every source in the article to vette their authors for whatever degree of ideological purity you require. But the big thing you're missing is this: your "undue" book (and in an article of this length, claiming that a single sentence is "undue" is absurd on the face) sets forth no facts, challengeable or otherwise. Its simple existence is mentioned.
These are the sorts of things that lead me to question your ownership mentality here: that you condemn the author of this book without seemingly knowing anything about him, that you condemn the book as biased without having read it, that you claim this mention is of undue weight when the sentence is no more than one percent of the freaking article, and that you thought this so egregious a sin that it was warranted to take an editor to ANI over its inclusion. If you really cannot see why this reaction is far, far over the top, perhaps you need to step back for a while and let others edit the Saab article. Ravenswing 07:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Which the book clearly lacks." There is no "clearly" about it. What is your evidence for this assertion? Nor does belonging to an advocacy group by-definition mean one cannot be knowledgeable in a particular area -- an extremely curious charge -- nor do I see that you've done a blanket review of each and every source in the article to vette their authors for whatever degree of ideological purity you require. But the big thing you're missing is this: your "undue" book (and in an article of this length, claiming that a single sentence is "undue" is absurd on the face) sets forth no facts, challengeable or otherwise. Its simple existence is mentioned.
- Accusing me of biting a new editor seems unfair: I was the first to welcome the user to Wikipedia, pointing out to guidelines and help, and my warnings over behavior have been gradual, starting from general notes to caution and warning templates. As for the accusations of owning the article, you can take a look at the article's edit history or talk page to see how many of my proposals have been disputed and how I have not insisted on them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Using bare URL links from Amazon, the same link where the book is sold, as well as the lack of reliable references to it, is a proof by itself that there isn't independent coverage. As for Suárez being knowledgeable, the issue is not demonstrating that he could be, but that he is, as required by the verifiability policy. Otherwise, claims amount to speculation, which are not admissible in an article, let alone a BLP one.
- The issue was not this single proposed change: it is that it has persisted over six months, despite concerns raised against it ([1][2][3][4][5]). At any rate, I propose any issues related to content dispute to be dealt in the article's talk page, where it might be easier to maintain. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Alex Saab edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
(Not) Minor Edits edit
Hello and good day Juliacohen2022.
Some editors have noted that you mark a great deal of your edits as minor edits. Please be aware that most 'minor' edits are very small grammar changes, spelling corrections, format fixes, and so on and so forth. Adding or removing content or citations from an article is never considered a minor edit (arguably unless it is a reversion of blatant vandalism). This is just some friendly advice to reconsider what you mark as minor. Have a good day! GabberFlasted (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)