LandonWeberMSU, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit

 

Hi LandonWeberMSU! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections edit

Hi LandonWeberMSU! I undid your recent edits to the article 2018 United States House of Representatives elections (specifically, this one and this one, restoring to this last good version (lgv)), and I wanted to let you know why:

  1. This edit had this edit summary: "Added additional source regarding House popular vote margin/historical precedent of Democrats performance as minority party . Do not remove unless you find a contradictory source." Perhaps you didn't notice but the "additional source" you "added" (this CNN article) was the same source that was there before. However, previously, it was cited using a citation template (see also template:citation), and your edit cited it without using that template. The rest of the article uses citation templates, so for consistency, all citations in the article should be using templates
  2. "2018 United States House of Representatives elections" doesn't need to be said in the lead section because that is the name of the article
  3. "2018" should not be linked back to "2018 United States House of Representatives elections" because that is the article; an article shouldn't have a link to itself
  4. We cannot say "largest margin ever" and link to the official House results as a source. Doing so would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The official House results don't say anything about the 2018 election. Luckily, we have other sources (like that CNN article), which are secondary source (see WP:PSTS) and directly support the sentence.

Although technically I "reverted," the sentence as it stands right now still has the same information as your revision, cited to the same secondary source. By all means, if you find more/better secondary sources to add to or replace the CNN cite, please add them. Happy editing! Levivich (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your recent edits at Blue Dog Coalition edit

Hi LandonWeberMSU, it's me again! :-) I also reverted your edits (1, 2, 3, 4) at Blue Dog Coalition to the last good version and wanted to let you know why. For the infobox field "political position," the first source cited says this: "...the Blue Dog Co­ali­tion of cen­ter-left and cen­ter-right Demo­crats ..." The second source cited says this: "...Blue Dogs and other center-right Democrats..." As a result, Wikipedia says "center-left to center-right." We cannot say "center to center-right," because that's not what the cited sources say. Even though you and I may both disagree with a source (and I agree with you that Blue Dogs are center-to-center-right, not center-left), we can't base a Wikipedia article on our opinion. It has to be based on the reliable sources. If you want to discuss this further, for example if you think the National Journal source is an outlier and all the other reliable sources agree Blue Dogs are "center-right" not "center-left," please post to the article's talk page (rather than edit-warring). Note: there is already a two-year-old conversation on the talk page about this exact issue. Take care! Levivich (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Postscript: After I posted this note, but before I hit the revert button, Toa_Nidhiki05 reverted the same edits, I imagine for the same reasons. Levivich (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

December 2018 edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Blue Dog Coalition Toa Nidhiki05 23:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply